P. v. Velasquez CA5

Filed 8/2/13 P. v. Velasquez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F064285 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF137599A) v.

DANIEL VELASQUEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John R. Brownlee, Judge. Allen G. Weinberg, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Michael A. Canzoneri and Barton Bowers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

 Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Detjen, J., and Franson, J.

INTRODUCTION On December 2, 2011, a jury found Daniel Velasquez (appellant) guilty of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a), count 1)1 and robbery (§§ 211 & 212.5, subd. (c), count 2). In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found true allegations that appellant had a prior conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (c)-(j) & 1170.12, subds. (a)-(e)) and a prior serious felony enhancement (§ 667, subd. (a)). The court also found true six prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). On January 6, 2012, the trial court sentenced appellant to the midterm of five years on count 1, doubled the sentence to 10 years pursuant to the three strikes law, and stayed appellant’s sentence on count 2 pursuant to section 654. The court imposed sentence on five of the prior prison term enhancements and imposed a term of five years for the prior serious felony enhancement.2 Appellant’s total prison term is 20 years. The court granted total custody credits of 204 days, imposed a $200 restitution fine, a $10 crime prevention fine pursuant to section 1202.5, and other fines and fees. Appellant contends that there is an error in the abstract of judgment, a point respondent concedes. Appellant further contends that the trial court failed to make an ability to pay finding when it imposed a $10 crime prevention fine pursuant to section 1202.5. We agree with respondent that appellant failed to raise his ability to pay at the sentencing hearing and has, therefore, forfeited the issue for appellate review.3