California Court of Appeal Sep 12, 2024 No. E081679Unpublished
Filed 9/12/24 P. v. Megrave CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E081679
v. (Super.Ct.Nos. FVI22003430 & FVI22003207) HASSIE PIP NEGUS MEGRAVE, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Rasheed Alexander,
Judge. Dismissed.
Charles Thomas Anderson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General,
Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Eric Tran, Deputy
Attorney Generals, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
Defendant and appellant Hassie Megrave appeals from the trial court’s order
imposing a restitution fine and court assessments totaling $370. For the reasons set forth
post, we dismiss the appeal.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
On June 29, 2023, defendant pleaded no contest in case No. FVI22003207 to
failure to register as a sex offender (Penal Code2 § 290.012, subd. (a)), and no contest in
fees, or costs without having first presented the claim in the trial court.” (People v. Hall
(2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 502, 504.)
In response to our request for additional briefing, defendant contends that section
1237.2 does not apply because his appeal “raises two ‘separate and discrete question[s] of
law or fact’ ” namely, (1) “whether the trial court erred in imposing $370 in fines and
assessments without conducting an ability to pay hearing” and (2) “whether appellant’s
Duenas challenge was forfeited due to his failure to object in the trial court and whether
the forfeiture should be set aside on ineffective assistance of counsel grounds.” We are
not persuaded. Notably, defendant’s opening brief contains one sole argument heading
section: “The trial court erred by imposing a restitution fine and court funding
assessments without considering appellant’s ability to pay.” Additionally, defendant’s
appeal does not question whether his Dueñas claim has been forfeited, rather, after
conceding forfeiture, defendant contends that such forfeiture should be set aside because
defense counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a Dueñas objection in the trial court.
Regardless, defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim is based on the erroneous
4
imposition of fines and fees, and the mere addition of an ineffective assistance of counsel
claim does not alter the underlying claim itself.
Therefore, under section 1237.2, defendant is required to seek relief in the trial
court in the first instance before pursuing this single-issue appeal. Because he has failed
to do so, we must dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
RAPHAEL J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the defendant failed to first seek relief in the trial court for his challenge to the imposition of fines and assessments, as required by Penal Code section 1237.2.
Issues
Whether an appeal challenging the imposition of fines and assessments without an ability-to-pay hearing must be dismissed under Penal Code section 1237.2 for failure to first seek relief in the trial court.
Whether an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on the failure to object to fines and fees exempts an appeal from the requirements of Penal Code section 1237.2.
Disposition. Dismissed
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Therefore, under section 1237.2, defendant is required to seek relief in the trial court in the first instance before pursuing this single-issue appeal. Because he has failed to do so, we must dismiss the appeal.”
“Section 1237.2 applies any time a defendant claims the trial court wrongly imposed fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs without having first presented the claim in the trial court.”