People v. Garges CA3

Filed 7/8/15 P. v. Garges CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COPY

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Siskiyou) ----

THE PEOPLE, C076566

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 120960)

v.

CHARLES RAY GARGES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Charles Ray Garges appeals the judgment imposed following his conviction for escape from custody. Specifically, he appeals the trial court’s order that he pay a restitution fund fine of $1,800, and the imposition of the corresponding $1,800 parole revocation fine. Based on counsel’s failure to object, we find this issue forfeited. Anticipating this conclusion, defendant also contends he received ineffective assistance

1

of counsel. On this point, we agree with defendant. We will correct the fines and order the abstract of judgment amended accordingly.

FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS

In April 2012 defendant was an inmate at the Deadwood Conservation Camp, an institution within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Defendant had been repeatedly advised of the boundaries of the camp and the consequences of being outside the boundaries. The boundaries are well marked. One April evening, Correctional Officer Chad Tupman was conducting a perimeter check of the camp. He noticed an inmate near the roadway. Tupman confronted the inmate, defendant, and asked what he was doing. Defendant appeared nervous and answered he was looking for a “drop.” A “drop” is a term used to describe a package of contraband left by a noninmate for an inmate just outside of camp limits. Tupman ordered defendant back to camp. Defendant apologized, complied with Tupman’s order, and returned to camp. Tupman looked for the drop but could not find it. An information charged defendant with escape from custody, a felony. (Pen. Code, § 4530, subd. (b); unless otherwise set forth, statutory references that follow are to the Penal Code.) The information also alleged defendant had a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (e), 1192.7) and had served five prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). A jury found defendant guilty and, in bifurcated proceedings, defendant admitted the prior strike conviction and admitted that he had served three prior prison terms. On the People’s motion, the trial court struck the remaining enhancement allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of six years in prison. The trial court also ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees including a restitution fund fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b) and a matching parole revocation fine under section 1202.45. In imposing that fee, the trial court stated, “There is a restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code 1202.4(b), and that’s $200 times the number of years. So that’s