People v. Sanchez CA1/4

Filed 12/24/25 P. v. Sanchez CA1/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A171960 v. (Napa County Super. Ct. MAURILLO SANCHEZ, No. CR182867)

Defendant and Appellant.

Maurillo Sanchez contends the trial court erroneously imposed a $1,563 fine for driving under the influence of alcohol and stayed an identical fine (jointly, the DUI fine) without stating how the fine was calculated, identifying its statutory basis, or holding a hearing on his ability to pay. Sanchez’s failure to raise these objections at the sentencing hearing forfeited them for appeal, so we affirm without reaching the merits. BACKGROUND The underlying facts are not relevant to the issues presented here. Sanchez was convicted on a plea of no contest to two counts of threatening an officer, two counts of resisting an officer, and one count of vehicle theft, all felonies, and misdemeanor driving under the influence of alcohol (count 6), driving with a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 percent or higher (count 7), hit and run driving, and driving without a license. He admitted special

1

allegations that he refused a chemical test and had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.20 percent or more at the time of driving. The probation report recommended that the court impose a $1,563 fine for driving under the influence of alcohol (Pen. Code, § 23536) on count 6, “includ[ing] penalty assessments, a Criminal Conviction Assessment, and a Court Security Fee,” and stay an identical fine on count 7. It also recommended a $300 restitution fine, a $300 parole revocation restitution fine, suspended, and court operations assessment fees totaling $490. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel confirmed that he had reviewed the probation report’s recommendations with Sanchez. The court denied probation and imposed the negotiated prison term of three years and eight months, to run concurrently with a prison commitment from another county. It ordered Sanchez to pay one $1,563 DUI fine, stayed the second, and imposed other fines not at issue here. Sanchez neither objected to the fines nor requested clarification of the DUI fine. Sanchez appealed and, some six months later, filed a motion in the superior court pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.2 seeking correction of fees, fines, and assessments he claimed were erroneous.1 Sanchez asserted