People v. Huezo CA3

California Court of Appeal Dec 13, 2013 No. C073512Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the defendant's conviction and sentence but remanded the case for the trial court to prepare a corrected abstract of judgment that properly identifies the statutory basis for all imposed fines, fees, and penalties.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in its sentencing of the defendant pursuant to a plea agreement.
Whether the defendant's sentence was discriminatory based on his age.
Whether the trial court failed to properly pronounce and identify the statutory basis for all fines, fees, and assessments on the record.

Disposition. Affirmed and remanded

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The trial court may not properly refuse to pronounce all fines, fees, and penalties on the record.”

“No matter how tedious this chore may seem, the trial court must perform it sua sponte, and may not shift the burden to the defendant to ask the court to do it.”

“We must remand the matter to the trial court, however, with directions to prepare a new abstract of judgment that correctly shows all fines, fees, and penalties, including the statutes under which they are imposed.”

Filed 12/13/13 P. v. Huezo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C073512

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F05401)

RICARDO HUEZO,

Defendant and Appellant.

A complaint filed on August 13, 2012, accused defendant Ricardo Huezo of receiving stolen property; driving while under the influence of alcohol; driving with a blood-alcohol content greater than 0.08 percent; and resisting, delaying, and obstructing peace officers in the discharge of their duty. The complaint alleged that defendant had a prior conviction for driving with a blood-alcohol content greater than 0.08 percent. As to all counts, the complaint alleged that defendant had a prior strike. On January 25, 2013, defendant pled no contest to receiving stolen property (a felony) and driving with a blood-alcohol content greater than 0.08 percent (a

misdemeanor) and admitted the strike, in exchange for the dismissal of the remaining charges and a state prison sentence of 32 months. The plea allowed defendant to file a motion to strike the strike.1 (Pen. Code,2 § 1385; People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.) The factual basis for the plea, as recited by the prosecutor, was as follows: defendant was stopped for erratic driving on or about August 9, 2012, was determined to have a blood-alcohol content of 0.16 percent, and had stolen property on his person. In addition, he was convicted of first degree burglary on January 23, 2008. On February 15, 2013, defendant filed a motion to the trial court to dismiss his strike. The trial court denied the request, noting that defendant had a criminal record which included misdemeanors, felonies, and a parole violation in addition to the offenses charged in this case. The court then imposed a 32-month state prison term, with four years of informal probation as to the misdemeanor “concurrent with the time that I’m going to impose on the felony matter.”3 The court awarded defendant 150 days of presentence custody credit (75 actual days and 75 conduct days). As to the misdemeanor, the court imposed “the minimum fine of $390,” as identified by probation, but did not identify its statutory basis. The court also imposed a $600 restitution fine. (§ 1204.4, subd. (b).) As to other fines, fees, and assessments, the court stated that they would be in accordance with the terms stated on pages eight through 11 of the probation report, but did not otherwise delineate them, instead saying:

People v. Huezo CA3

AI Brief

THE PEOPLE, C073512

RICARDO HUEZO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BUTZ , J.

MAURO , J.

AI Brief