People v. Sermeno CA3

Filed 12/10/25 P. v. Sermeno CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102419

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24CF02944)

v.

LARRY ALTAMIRANO SERMENO,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Larry Altamirano Sermeno pleaded no contest to possession of a controlled substance with a qualifying prior and was sentenced to 16 months in state prison and various assessments and fines. Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, defendant now contends the trial court violated his rights to due process, equal protection, and the prohibition against excessive fines when it imposed the assessments and fines without first holding an ability to pay hearing. Alternatively, he contends trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object and request a hearing.

1

As we next explain, we will affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In July 2024, defendant made approximately nine calls to 9-1-1. Medical personnel responded and determined defendant did not require medical services. Defendant was arrested, and during a search incident to that arrest, police officers found .22 grams of cocaine in his wallet. The People subsequently charged defendant with possessing a controlled substance with a qualifying prior conviction (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) and making unlawful calls to 911 (Pen. Code, § 356x, subd. (a)).1 The People also alleged defendant was previously convicted of a strike offense. Defendant pleaded no contest to possessing a controlled substance. In exchange for the plea, the People moved the trial court to dismiss the remaining charge and allegation; the court granted the People’s motion. The probation department subsequently submitted a report recommending defendant be sentenced to the upper term of three years in prison. According to that report, defendant was 30 years old. He was in “fair” health and received his GED in 2013. He identified his job skills as “concrete, landscaping, legal research, legal writing, communication, production, and customer service.” He was previously employed but was not working at the time of his arrest because he was “participating in recovery services and suffering from alcoholism.” Defendant reported to the probation department that he intended to go back to school, but was currently looking for a job. He also said he was working with a real estate agent to buy a house; she was helping him to establish his credit and income. With the help of his mother and a sponsor, he was working to get sober. Overall, the probation