People v. Gonzalez CA2/1

Filed 6/24/14 P. v. Gonzalez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B253086

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA038714) v.

URIEL GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge. Affirmed. Uriel Gonzalez, in pro. per.; and Larry Pizarro, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_________________________________

In 2001, defendant Uriel Gonzalez was convicted of four counts of attempted murder with findings he acted with premeditation and deliberation, personally fired a gun, and personally fired a gun, causing great bodily injury. He was sentenced to three consecutive life terms, plus 25 years to life, plus 40 years. The court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a matching $10,000 parole revocation fine under Penal Code section 1202.45, but it does not appear the court ordered victim restitution. In October of 2013, defendant filed “Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Modification of Sentence Pursuant to Penal Code § 1202.4, (f)(1).” In this document, defendant challenged the Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine on the following grounds: (1) it denies him equal protection because persons serving life in prison without possibility of parole are not subject to a Penal Code section 1202.45 parole revocation fine, whereas he has to pay the Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine even though he will never be released from prison, given the length of his sentence; (2) the trial court’s order did not itemize the restitution fine by victim and loss; (3) California’s restitution laws are unconstitutional because their purpose is to compensate crime victims for their losses, while “[t]he United States Supreme Court has concluded, that the purpose of restitution is to accomplish the penal goals of the state, [not] to compensate victims”; the trial court did not consider defendant’s ability to pay in setting the amount of the restitution fine; and it is inappropriate to consider defendant’s potential earnings in prison or any other potential earnings more than 60 days after the judgment in determining his ability to pay. The trial court denied defendant’s motion as untimely and including issues that should have, but were not, raised on appeal. Defendant appealed the trial court’s order. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. Defendant filed a single-page supplemental brief summarily reiterating his argument about a 60-day window for future earning ability.