California Court of Appeal Dec 10, 2014 No. D065291Unpublished
Filed 12/10/14 P. v. Goodwin CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 case number SCD229917, Goodwin pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base
(Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in exchange for entry into a drug treatment
program. Goodwin's sentence included a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4,
subd. (b)) and a $200 probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44).
Approximately seven months later, in case number SCD233633, Goodwin pleaded
guilty to possessing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in exchange
for dismissal of other charges and enhancements and entry into a drug treatment program.
Goodwin's sentence included a $200 restitution fine and a $200 probation revocation fine.
The court also revoked, reinstated and continued Goodwin's probation in case number
SCD229917 on the same terms and conditions.
Approximately four months later, in case number SCD235209, Goodwin pleaded
guilty to selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) in exchange for a
four-year stayed state prison sentence, a grant of probation with a term of 365 days in jail,
and a waiver of conduct credits. Goodwin's sentence included a $200 restitution fine and
a $200 probation revocation fine. The court also revoked and reinstated Goodwin's
probation in case numbers SCD229917 and SCD233633 and sentenced him to 365 days
in jail to run concurrently with his sentence in case number SCD235209.
2
Approximately 15 months later, Goodwin admitted violating his probation in all
three cases. The court revoked Goodwin's probation, imposed the four-year stayed
sentence in case number SCD235209, and imposed concurrent two-year sentences in case
numbers SCD229917 and SCD233633. The court also imposed restitution fines of $960
for case number SCD235209, $480 for case number SCD233633, and $480 for case
number SCD229917 and probation revocation fines of $240 for case number
SCD235209, $200 for case number SCD233633, and $200 for case number SCD229917.
DISCUSSION
Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings
below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the
record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442.
Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744, counsel identified two
possible, but not reasonably arguable issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion
by failing to reinstate Goodwin's probation; and (2) whether Goodwin's trial counsel
provided him with effective assistance. Counsel identified a third issue, whether the
court erred in increasing the amount of restitution fines imposed in case numbers
SCD229917 and SCD233633; however, counsel indicated Goodwin did not want this
issue raised on appeal.
We granted Goodwin permission to file a brief on his own behalf, which he did
not do. Concerned the increased restitution fines might be unauthorized, we requested
supplemental letter briefs from the parties "addressing whether the trial court correctly
3
imposed restitution, probation revocation, and parole revocation fines in each of the
[three] cases and, if not, whether and how this court should correct any error."
In their respective briefs, Goodwin contends and the People concede the court
lacked authorization to increase the restitution fines in any of the cases after revoking
Goodwin's probation and sentencing him to prison. (People v. Perez (2011) 195
Cal.App.4th 801, 805; People v. Johnson (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 284, 307; People v.
Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 921; People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th
819, 821-823.) As the probation revocation fines must be in the same amount as the
restitution fines, the court also lacked the authorization to increase any of them.
(Pen. Code, § 1202.44; People v. Perez, supra, at p. 805.) We will, therefore, direct the
court to modify the abstract of judgment to reduce the restitution and probation
revocation fines to authorized amounts.
Our independent review of the record did not result in the identification of any
other reasonably arguable issues.1 Goodwin has been competently represented by
counsel in this appeal.
1 To the extent the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act (Prop. 47, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014)) applies to any of Goodwin's convictions, Goodwin may petition the trial court for resentencing or a reduction of the charge to a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18 (a), (f).) 4
DISPOSITION
The court is directed to modify the abstract of judgment to reflect restitution and
probation revocation fines of $200 each in case numbers SCD229917, SCD233633, and
SCD235209. The court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the modified
abstract of judgment to the appropriate corrections authorities. The judgment is affirmed
in all other respects.
MCCONNELL, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
HALLER, J.
O'ROURKE, J.
5
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court held that the trial court lacked legal authorization to increase restitution and probation revocation fines upon the revocation of probation and sentencing, and ordered the judgment modified to reflect the original fine amounts.
Issues
Whether the trial court erred by increasing restitution and probation revocation fines after revoking probation and imposing a prison sentence.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion by failing to reinstate probation.
Whether the defendant received effective assistance of counsel.
Disposition. Affirmed as modified.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“We modify the judgment to correct unauthorized increases in restitution and probation revocation fines.”
“the court lacked authorization to increase the restitution fines in any of the cases after revoking Goodwin's probation and sentencing him to prison.”
“As the probation revocation fines must be in the same amount as the restitution fines, the court also lacked the authorization to increase any of them.”