People v. Miranda CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Aug 14, 2014 No. B250070Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court modified the defendant's presentence custody credits, ordered an ability-to-pay hearing for a local crime prevention fine, and directed the trial court to impose mandatory assessments and fines omitted from the oral pronouncement.

Issues

Whether the defendant was entitled to additional presentence custody credit.
Whether the trial court must conduct an ability-to-pay hearing for a fine and associated penalties not orally pronounced.
Whether the trial court must impose mandatory court facilities assessments and restitution fines omitted from the oral judgment.

Disposition. Modified in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Custody credit calculations begin on the day of arrest and continue through the day of sentencing.”

“Upon remittitur issuance, the trial court must conduct an ability to pay hearing as to the fine together with the penalty assessments and surcharge.”

“The oral pronouncement of judgment is controlling.”

Filed 8/14/14 P. v. Miranda CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B250070

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. Nos. BA398422, v. SA083144)

LUCIANO ABRAHAM MIRANDA,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from judgments of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Marsha N. Revel, Judge. Modified in part, affirmed in part, and remanded with directions. Gina McCoy, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Pamela C. Hamanaka, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

A jury convicted defendant, Luciano Abraham Miranda, of first degree burglary in

violation of Penal Code section 459.1 (Super. Ct., L.A. County, 2013, No. SA083144.) First degree burglary is a serious felony. (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(18); People v. Lara (2012) 54 Cal.4th 896, 906.) Defendant was also found in violation of his probation for grand theft of an automobile. (Super. Ct., L.A. County, 2012, No. BA398422.) Defendant was sentenced to four years, eight months in state prison. We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. After examination of the record, appointed appellate counsel filed a brief in which no issues were raised. Instead, appointed appellate counsel asked us to independently review the entire record on appeal pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442. (See Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 264.) On February 14, 2014, we advised defendant he had 30 days within which to submit by brief or letter any contentions or argument he wished us to consider. No response has been received. We requested supplemental briefing on certain sentence-related issues. We modify the judgment and affirm as modified.

People v. Miranda CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B250070

LUCIANO ABRAHAM MIRANDA,

I. INTRODUCTION

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

II. DISCUSSION

III. DISPOSITION

TURNER, P.J.

MOSK, J.

AI Brief