People v. Briones CA1/4

Filed 3/24/25 P. v. Briones CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A170083 v. ALEXANDER BRIONES, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 18CR003422) Defendant and Appellant.

Alexander Briones appeals from the trial court’s post-sentencing order applying $1,600 confiscated during his arrest to satisfy a victim restitution order, as authorized by Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f).1 Briones claims his procedural due process rights were violated because he did not receive notice of the People’s motions for this order or of the hearings on those motions. We conclude Briones received due process when the court addressed the confiscated funds at sentencing and, upon his counsel’s objection that he had not reviewed section 1202.4, invited Briones to raise any entitlement to the funds at a later time—which he never did in the years to follow. We affirm the order.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

I. BACKGROUND In 2018, Briones was charged with several offenses after he stole thousands of dollars’ worth of cell phones and other products from a T-Mobile store. He pled no contest to grand theft with a prior serious or violent felony conviction, commonly known as a “strike,”2 (§§ 487, subd. (a), 667, subds. (b)– (i)) and unlawful possession of a firearm (§ 29820). In March 2019, the trial court sentenced Briones according to the parties’ stipulation to 16 months in prison for grand theft, doubled to 32 months based on the prior strike, and a concurrent 16 months in prison for unlawful possession of a firearm. The court imposed fines and fees and ordered Briones and a codefendant to pay $1,859 in victim restitution. Later during the sentencing hearing, the court addressed Briones’s motion for the return of property confiscated at the time of his arrest. The prosecutor opposed the motion only as to $1,600 in cash that was among the confiscated items. She urged the court to apply those funds to the restitution order per section 1202.4, subdivision (f). Briones’s counsel responded that he “ha[d]n’t had a chance to review that specific authority,” and Briones “would like for his child’s mother to receive those funds.” Counsel requested an “opportunity to actually research that authority first” if the court were “inclined to confiscate those funds for the purpose of restitution.” The court granted Briones’s motion “with the exception of the $1[,]600” and stated its ruling was “without prejudice to have the defense raise that issue at a later time.” Briones did not take the court up on this offer. The $1,600 remained with the Napa County Sheriff Department for over four years. In February 2023, the People filed a motion to apply the funds to the restitution order. The trial court appointed a public defender to