People v. Happe CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Aug 27, 2025 No. D084893Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because it was untimely regarding the underlying probation order and because the defendant failed to obtain a certificate of probable cause required to challenge the restitution fines imposed as part of a plea bargain.

Issues

Whether the appeal of the probation order was timely filed.
Whether the defendant's challenge to the restitution fines required a certificate of probable cause under Penal Code section 1237.5.

Disposition. Dismissed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Happe’s appeal is untimely as it relates to the June 27, 2024 probation order and this court lacks jurisdiction to consider the issues raised in his opening brief”

“Dismissal of Happe’s challenge to the restitution fines is also required because Happe failed to seek a certificate of probable cause in the trial court.”

Filed 8/27/25 P. v. Happe 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D084893

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCE423466)

SUTTER REINER HAPPE,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Herbert J. Exarhos, Judge. Dismissed. Richard Jay Moller, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Tyler L. Krentz, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Sutter Reiner Happe pleaded guilty to burglary, theft from an elderly victim, and grand theft. At the sentencing hearing on June 27, 2024, the trial court sentenced Happe to six years and eight months in prison, but suspended execution of the sentence and placed Happe on formal probation. The terms and conditions of that probation included several fines and fees, and 365 days in local custody with release to a residential drug treatment program once a placement became available. After a separate hearing on September 6, 2024, the court issued an order setting the amount of victim restitution. On September 18, 2024, Happe filed a notice of appeal initiating proceedings in this court. In his opening brief, Happe asserts the restitution fine (Pen. Code,

§ 1202.41), probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), state surcharge (§ 1465.7, subd. (a)), and theft fine (§ 1202.5) imposed by the court must be stricken because the court failed to pronounce them orally at the sentencing hearing. The Attorney General responds that Happe’s appeal should be dismissed because it is both untimely and because Happe failed to obtain a

People v. Happe CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D084893

SUTTER REINER HAPPE,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BUCHANAN, J.

AI Brief