People v. Manzilla CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Oct 9, 2013 No. D063049Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the restitution and parole revocation fines by failing to object at sentencing, and that the fines imposed were within the statutorily authorized range.

Issues

Whether the ex post facto clause requires a reduction of restitution and parole revocation fines from $240 to $200.
Whether the defendant forfeited his right to challenge the fines by failing to object in the trial court.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The $240 fines were within the statutorily authorized range, both at the time of the offense and at the time of sentencing.”

“Manzilla did not object to the fines in the court below and has thus forfeited his right to do so on appeal.”

Filed 10/9/13 P. v. Manzilla CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D063049

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD236566)

DANIEL MANZILLA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles R.

Gill, Judge. Affirmed.

John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and

Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General and Charles C. Ragland, Deputy

Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In September 2011, Daniel Manzilla committed an assault. In September 2012, he

pled guilty to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1

former § 245, subd. (a)(1)) for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd.

(b)(1)). In October 2012, the court struck the gang enhancement and sentenced Manzilla

to the lower two-year prison term. Manzilla appeals, contending that the ex post facto

People v. Manzilla CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D063049

DANIEL MANZILLA,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISPOSITION

AARON, J.

NARES, J.

AI Brief