People v. Alamillo CA2/6

Filed 4/24/25 P. v. Alamillo CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B334859 (Super. Ct. No. 2023022134) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

MANUEL R. ALAMILLO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Manuel R. Alamillo appeals a judgment following his guilty plea to second degree burglary, a felony. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The trial court sentenced him to serve “16 months of felony jail.” At the sentencing hearing, the court imposed certain fines but mistakenly failed to mention the court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) and the court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8). Alamillo had agreed to pay these assessments in his plea agreement that the court approved. The court clerk added these two assessments to the abstract of judgment. We conclude the clerk erred by adding these assessments. But this error was harmless because these two assessments are mandatory,

Alamillo agreed to pay them in his plea agreement, the abstract is legally correct, and Alamillo forfeited the claim that the court had to hold an ability-to-pay hearing. We remand for the trial court to correct the sentencing minute order to add these two assessments. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTS At 1:29 a.m., on August 21, 2023, Alamillo broke into a closed Kentucky Fried Chicken restaurant. He used tools to open a cash register and take money. When he opened a door to leave, an “alarm was activated.” The People filed a “felony information” alleging one count of second degree commercial burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) Alamillo entered into a negotiated plea agreement. After Alamillo’s guilty plea, the trial court sentenced him to “16 months of felony jail.” The court ruled the fines and fees mentioned in the probation report were imposed as part of the sentence. They included: 1) a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); 2) restitution to the victim “in an amount to be determined by further order of the Court”; and 3) a $10 fine plus penalty assessment “pursuant to [section] 1202.5 of the Penal Code.” Alamillo did not claim that he lacked the ability to pay these fines at the sentencing hearing. There were two assessments the trial court did not mention at the sentencing hearing – a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373) and a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8). Alamillo had agreed to pay these two assessments in his written plea agreement. The court clerk prepared an abstract of judgment that included these two assessments.