People v. Carter CA3

Filed 12/4/24 P. v. Carter CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098816

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE005128)

v.

KYRIN DUQUAN CARTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Kyrin Duquan Carter asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We asked the parties to provide supplemental briefing as to whether defendant is entitled to additional custody credits. Having reviewed the supplemental briefing and the record as required by Wende, we will direct the trial court to modify the sentencing order with respect to certain fines and fees and affirm as modified. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In March 2022, defendant resisted a police officer. Defendant was subsequently charged in case No. 22FE005128 (case No. 5128) with felony resisting a law enforcement officer. (Pen. Code,1 § 69.)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On September 6, 2022, as part of a global plea deal resolving nine cases, defendant pleaded no contest in case No. 5128 to violating section 69 in exchange for being placed on probation. Defendant agreed to participate in a treatment program and, if he was unsuccessful in the program, he would have to serve 364 days in custody. Defendant also pleaded no contest in one misdemeanor case to one count of misdemeanor vandalism (§ 594), no contest in a second misdemeanor case to one count of interfering with peaceful conduct on campus (§ 626.6), and no contest in a third misdemeanor case to one count of trespass (§ 602) (the misdemeanor cases, collectively). The remaining charges were dismissed. Since defendant had served 164 days, the trial court explained defendant would receive 160 days of credit on the misdemeanor cases and four days of credit on case No. 5128. The prosecution agreed, defense counsel stated defendant was “agreeable,” and defendant said he understood. The trial court suspended imposition of sentence in case No. 5128 and placed defendant on two years’ probation. In the misdemeanor cases, the trial court sentenced defendant to 160 days and awarded him 160 days of custody credit. During the hearing, defendant agreed he had reviewed the written probation conditions for case No. 5128. The conditions required defendant to seek and obtain professional counseling through and under the direction of the probation officer, as well as comply with any special conditions of probation as ordered by the court or the probation officer. In addition, defendant was required to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a corresponding $300 probation revocation fine (suspended unless probation is revoked) (§ 1202.44), a $30 criminal conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $96 state surcharge representing 20 percent of the base fine (§ 1465.7, subd. (a)). The document also stated that the court imposed a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), although not as a condition of probation. The conditions further stated that defendant would receive credit for time served of four days. Defendant was initially released to the agreed-upon treatment program, and subsequently moved to a different program in October 2022. In November 2022, it was 2