The People v. Woods CA5

California Court of Appeal Sep 20, 2013 No. F065458Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from trial counsel's failure to object to the restitution fines, as the trial court is presumed to have considered the defendant's ability to pay and the defendant failed to show a reasonable probability of a different outcome.

Issues

Whether trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the imposition of restitution fines above the statutory minimum based on the defendant's inability to pay.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Woods has not shown that an objection calling the court’s attention to the matter would have made any difference.”

“we conclude that Woods has not shown a reasonable probability that an objection to the fines imposed under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 would have led the court to reduce the amounts it imposed.”

Filed 9/20/13 P. v. Woods 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F065458 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F12901729) v.

KIP AARON WOODS, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Denise Whitehead, Judge. Benjamin Owens, 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, Louis M. Vasquez and Lewis A. Martinez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Cornell, Acting P.J., Gomes, J., and Kane, J.

Defendant Kip Aaron Woods was convicted of inflicting corporal injury on his ex- wife. He contends that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance when counsel failed to assert that Woods was unable to pay a restitution fine and a parole revocation restitution fine of $1,920 each and that the minimum fines of $240 each should have been imposed instead. We affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORIES Woods entered his ex-wife’s home uninvited, choked her, punched her, and said that either she or her boyfriend was “going to die.” The district attorney filed an information charging Woods with one count of willfully inflicting corporal injury on a former spouse. (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a).1) The information alleged that Woods had one prior strike under the Three Strikes Law (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)) and had served two prior prison terms within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). A jury found Woods guilty as charged, and he admitted to the prior strike and the prior prison terms. The court sentenced Woods to eight years in state prison, consisting of the three- year middle term, doubled for the prior strike, plus two years for the two prior prison term enhancements. The court also imposed fines and fees as follows: (1) a restitution fine of $1,920 (§ 1202.4); (2) a parole revocation restitution fine of $1,920 (§ 1202.45); (3) a court operations assessment of $40 (§ 1465.8); and (4) a criminal conviction assessment of $30 (Gov. Code, § 70373). DISCUSSION Woods argues that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his trial counsel did not object to the restitution fine and the parole revocation restitution fine. He says that if counsel had objected, the court might instead have imposed the statutory minimums for those fines, which are $240 each. The court declined to impose a

The People v. Woods CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief