People v. Laws CA2/4

Filed 4/14/14 P. v. Laws CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B249705

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA008785) v.

BRIAN KEITH LAWS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Robert M. Martinez, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Ann Krausz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Appellant. No appearance for Respondent.

Brian Keith Laws appeals from the denial of his motion to strike or modify a restitution order. The order denying his motion is not appealable. We dismiss the appeal.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Laws was convicted by jury of first degree murder (Pen. Code § 187, subd. (a)1) and second degree robbery (§ 211). The jury found true special allegations that he had personally used a firearm as to both counts (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to state prison without the possibility of parole. The trial court ordered Laws to pay restitution of $7,500 pursuant to former Government Code section 13967. We affirmed his conviction in an unpublished opinion. (People v. Laws (June 30, 1994, B075311) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2009, Laws filed a request in pro per that he be excused from paying restitution. The request was denied. In 2013, he filed a new motion to strike or modify the restitution order, citing People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, which ruled that where a sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole has been imposed, and a restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), a second restitution fine may not be imposed under section 1202.45. He also cited other authority regarding the handling of the State Restitution Fund and the bar on a restitution fine to reimburse public agencies for the costs of investigating and prosecuting crimes. He argued that a defendant’s inability to pay may constitute compelling circumstances for waiver of a restitution fine. He asked the court to either strike the $7,500 restitution fine imposed under Government Code section 13967 or to reduce it to the minimum amount of $200. The motion was denied. Laws filed a timely appeal from that order.