People v. Rackley CA3

Filed 8/28/25 P. v. Rackley CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102944

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F01582)

v.

FRANK WILLIAM RACKLEY, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Frank William Rackley, Sr., appeals from a resentencing order made under Penal Code1 section 1172.75. His appointed counsel asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record revealed that the abstract of judgment erroneously lists a $200 serious habitual offender program fine, when the trial court

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

actually imposed a $300 fine. In addition, we vacate a main jail booking fee, a main jail classification fee, and penalty assessments. We affirm the judgment as modified and order the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In June 2011, defendant used his hand to penetrate C.M.’s vagina and anus, and then raped her. The following month, defendant raped J.D. Both victims were sex workers at the time of the assaults. In 2012, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of forcible rape and two counts of forcible sexual penetration. As to each count, the jury also found true that defendant committed an offense specified in section 667.61, subdivision (c) against more than one victim. In bifurcated proceedings, the trial court also found true that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction, a prior strike, and four prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of 21 years, plus 120 years to life consecutive, including one year for the prior prison term enhancement. The court awarded 445 days custody credit (387 actual days, plus 58 conduct days). The court also imposed a $10,000 restitution fine; a corresponding $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended unless parole is revoked); a $160 “court security surcharge fee” (Pen. Code, § 1465.8 [court operations assessment]); a $120 “court facility fee” (Gov. Code, § 70373 [court facilities assessment]); a $300 serious habitual offender program fine (Pen. Code, § 290.3), plus $130 in penalty assessments; a $340.01 main jail booking fee (Gov. Code, former § 29550.2); and a $62.09 main jail classification fee (Gov. Code, former § 29550.2). On appeal, this court affirmed the judgment and ordered the trial court to correct a clerical error in the abstract of judgment. (People v. Rackley (Nov. 18, 2016, C072249) [nonpub. opn.].)