People v. Perez CA2/1

Filed 2/2/15 P. v. Perez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B252985

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA413142) v.

CAMILO PEREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Dennis J. Landin, Judge. Sentence vacated and remanded with instructions; affirmed in all other respects. Paul J. Katz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Margaret E. Maxwell and Douglas L. Wilson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

Camilo Perez appeals from a sentence imposed after he was convicted of assault with a deadly weapon. He contends a parole revocation fine was improper where imposition of sentence was suspended, thus creating no possibility of parole, and a pre- verdict protective order was improperly made a probation condition. We agree with both contentions and thus vacate the judgment and remand for resentencing. BACKGROUND On July 1, 2013, Perez threatened Jose Farias and his daughter, Stephanie Espinoza, with a knife, threatening to kill them. When arrested, he told police “they” would not let him see his daughter. He was convicted by a jury on two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1).)1 At sentencing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Perez on formal probation for five years. As a condition of probation, Perez was ordered to serve 364 days in county jail and pay, among several other fees, both a parole revocation fine in the amount of $280 (§ 1202.45) and a probation revocation fine of $280 (§ 1202.44). In addition, as a condition of probation Perez was ordered to stay away from Farias and Espinoza and their residence, and advised that failure to do so may be “charged [as] a completely separate crime” and “may be punished as a felony, a misdemeanor, or contempt of court.” Perez timely appealed. DISCUSSION Parole Revocation Fine Perez contends the parole revocation fine was improper because suspension of the imposition of sentence created a situation where he was not sentenced to any prison term, and thus could not be granted parole. Respondent concedes the point, and we agree. (People v. Tye (2000) 83 Cal.App.4th 1398, 1401 [suspension of imposition of sentence creates a situation where the defendant has not been sentenced to a prison term, making a parole revocation fine improper].)