People v. Vargas CA3

Filed 11/14/24 P. v. Vargas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Lassen) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100419

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 2023CR0089465) v.

CARLOS JOSE VARGAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Carlos Jose Vargas appeals following his conviction for assault with a deadly weapon while incarcerated. He challenges a $300 minimum restitution fine imposed under Penal Code section 1202.4,1 arguing: (1) the trial court misunderstood its discretion to waive the restitution fine if it found compelling and extraordinary reasons to do so; (2) under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the court violated due

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

process by not determining his ability to pay before imposing the restitution fine; and (3) that imposing the restitution fine without an ability to pay hearing violated the Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause. Finding no merit in his contentions, we shall affirm. BACKGROUND In July 2023, Vargas and a codefendant were jointly charged with attempted premeditated murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a); count I), assault by a life prisoner (§ 4500; count II), assault with a deadly weapon while confined in a state prison (§ 4501, subd. (a); count III), and custodial possession of a weapon (§ 4502, subd. (a); count IV). The first amended complaint alleged that Vargas personally inflicted great bodily injury in connection with counts I and II (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)), and that he had suffered two prior strike convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). In January 2024, Vargas pled no contest to the assault with a deadly weapon charge (count III) and admitted one prior strike allegation in exchange for a stipulated term of eight years in prison (the midterm of four years, doubled for the prior strike) and dismissal of the remaining counts and allegations. In the written plea agreement, Vargas acknowledged that the trial court would order him to pay a $300 restitution fine. The trial court sentenced Vargas to eight years in prison in accordance with the plea agreement, to be served consecutively to the life term he was already serving. During the sentencing hearing, defense counsel asked the court to waive fines and fees based on Vargas’s inability to pay. Vargas then addressed the court, explaining that he was transient before his incarceration and had no way to pay any fine. While he sometimes received gifts, he “[does not] accept it because they take most of it out of it.” He explained that he did not keep money on his books and subsisted solely on what he was given in prison. After questioning Vargas about his financial situation, the trial court stated it “[could not] do anything with the $300 restitution fund fine. That’s just what the law