People v. Roper CA2/5

Filed 6/16/14 P. v. Roper CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B248381

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA393226) v.

SHAUN ROPER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, William N. Sterling, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Gloria C. Cohen, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Shawn McGahey Webb, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Taylor Nguyen, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant and appellant Shaun Roper pleaded no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (former Pen. Code, § 12021, subd. (a)(1)1, now § 29800, subd. (a)(1)); possession for sale of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); and acquisition and retention of the personal identification of another with the intent to defraud, with a prior section 530.5 conviction (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(2)). The trial court granted the prosecution’s motion to dismiss 26 other counts against defendant and allegations under section 667.5, subdivision (b). The trial court sentenced defendant to two years, eight months in prison with 889 days of presentence custody and conduct credit, and imposed a $10 section 1202.5 local crime prevention programs fine and accompanying penalty assessment; a $280 section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine; a $280 section 1202.45 parole revocation restitution fine; a $120 section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) court operations assessment; and a $90 Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1) court facilities assessment. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing the section 1202.5 fine and penalty assessment.2 We order the section 1202.5 fine stricken from defendant’s abstract of judgment,3 and otherwise affirm the judgment.