People v. Bautista-Castanon CA1/4

Filed 4/9/25 P. v. Bautista-Castanon CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, A170649 v. MARVYN OSBELI BAUTISTA- (San Mateo County CASTANON, Super. Ct. No. 18NF0006137A) Defendant and Appellant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION1 In 2021, defendant Marvyn Osbeli Bautista-Castanon was convicted in count 1 of sexual penetration of a child who was 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code,2 § 288.7, subd. (b)), and in count 2 of commission of a lewd act upon a child under 14 years of age (§ 288, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to prison for a total term of 15 years to life. (People v. Bautista-Castanon (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 922, 924–925.) At that time, the trial court ordered Bautista- Castanon to pay $700 to the San Mateo Police Department for the cost of the victim’s forensic examination (§ 1203.1h, subd. (b)); a $300 restitution fine plus a 10 percent collection fee (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); a $300 parole revocation

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1. 2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45); an $80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)); and a $60 criminal conviction assessment (Govt. Code, § 70373). In a prior appeal, this court affirmed Bautista-Castanon’s convictions but remanded for resentencing under then- recent amendments to sections 654 and 1170 that took effect while his appeal was pending. (People v. Bautista-Castanon, supra, 89 Cal.App.5th at pp. 926–927.) On remand, the trial court reimposed a term of 15 years to life in prison on count 1, and on count 2, imposed the midterm of six years and stayed that punishment under section 654. The court also stated that pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, “[a]ny fines and fees ordered by the Court originally are now vacated” and that it would “impose no fines and fees given the defendant’s financial position where he does not have any money to pay.” Finally, the court ordered that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) would “be responsible for calculating [Bautista-Castanon’s] overall credits in this case.” On appeal, Bautista-Castanon contends that the abstract of judgment must be amended to reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence. Specifically, he notes that the abstract of judgment incorrectly indicates that the court (1) imposed the upper term sentence on count 2, rather than the middle term; (2) imposed $700 in restitution under section 1202.4, subdivision (f); and (3) imposed but “waived” a $300 restitution fine and a $300 parole revocation fee. He argues that remand is necessary because the