People v. Ford CA2/1

Filed 11/24/14 P. v. Ford CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B251244

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA080614) v.

MICHELLE FORD,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Elden S. Fox, Judge. Affirmed. Sarah A. Stockwell, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, James William Bilderback II, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________________

Defendant Michelle Ford appeals from the judgment entered following a jury trial in which she was convicted of felony theft from an elder or dependent adult by a caretaker. (Pen. Code, § 368, subd. (e)(1).)1 Defendant contends the trial court imposed an unauthorized $240 restitution fine and matching probation revocation fine because the minimum fine amount at the time defendant committed her crime was $200. We conclude the claim, which defendant previously raised in the trial court, has no merit. BACKGROUND From 2008 through 2011, defendant served as the caretaker for a woman in her eighties who had suffered a stroke and cognitive impairment. Defendant used the woman’s credit cards to pay for her own purchases, obtained money from her, and persuaded her to buy a car for defendant.2 The jury convicted defendant of felony theft from an elder or dependent adult by a caretaker. The court suspended imposition of sentence and granted defendant probation on various terms, including payment of $24,421.38 in victim restitution and a section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine of $240. With respect to the restitution fine, the court stated, “There will be a mandated restitution fine based on the date of the offense of $240.” Pursuant to section 1202.44, subdivision (a), the court imposed a matching probation revocation fine of $240 that would become effective only upon revocation of probation. While the case was pending on appeal, defendant filed a motion in the trial court asking that court to correct the sentence by increasing defendant’s presentence credits and reducing the restitution and probation revocation fines to $200. Defendant argued, as she does in this appeal, that because the minimum amount for these fines was $200 during the