People v. Roland CA2/1

California Court of Appeal Sep 23, 2015 No. B257294Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the restitution fine by failing to object in the trial court, and that the fine was authorized by statute. Furthermore, the court rejected the defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, finding no reasonable probability of a different result had an objection been made.

Issues

Whether the imposition of a $280 restitution fine violated the ex post facto clause.
Whether the defendant forfeited his right to challenge the restitution fine on appeal by failing to object in the trial court.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the restitution fine.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Roland’s counsel did not object to the fine in the trial court and thus Roland has forfeited his right to raise the issue on appeal.”

“the $280 amount was authorized under the statute both at the time of his offense and at the time of sentencing.”

“Roland has not shown a reasonable probability of a more favorable result had his counsel objected to the $280 restitution fund fine.”

Filed 9/23/15 P. v. Roland CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, B257294

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA400446) v.

LAMAURGINALD ROLAND,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Rand S. Rubin, Judge. Affirmed. Paul Kleven, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. ——————————

At a hearing on June 24, 2013, Lamaurginald Roland pleaded no contest to one felony count of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245 subd. (a)(2)1), admitted the allegation that he personally used a firearm in commission of the felony (§§ 1203.06, subd. (a)(1), 12022.5, subd. (a)), and was sentenced to a total of seven years in state prison. During advisement and before Roland entered his plea, the prosecutor stated, “In addition to your sentence, the court will impose a restitution fine. This fine ranges from $280 to $10,000.” After accepting the plea, the court stated, “The defendant will pay a $280 restitution fund fine.” Roland’s attorney did not object to the prosecutor’s statement or to the amount of the fine imposed. Roland received custody and good time/work time credits, and was assessed a $280 restitution fund fine along with other assessments and fees. Roland filed a late notice of appeal on July 2, 2014, and on January 6, 2015, this court ordered the Los Angeles Superior Court to accept the appeal as timely filed. The superior court granted Roland’s request for certificate of probable cause. On appeal Roland argues that the restitution fund fine of $280 was ex post facto. While $280 was the minimum fine at the time of the hearing in June 2013, the minimum amount at the time Roland committed the crime on July 18, 2012 was $240. Effective January 1, 2012, section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), was amended to state: “The restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. If the person is convicted of a felony, the fine shall not be less than two hundred forty dollars ($240) starting on January 1, 2012, two hundred eighty dollars ($280) starting on January 1, 2013, and three hundred dollars ($300) starting on January 1, 2014, and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) . . . .” If the court sets the amount of the fine in excess of the minimum, the court is to consider any relevant factors, including the defendant’s inability to pay and the gravity of the offense, but “[e]xpress findings by the court as to the factors bearing on the

People v. Roland CA2/1

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B257294

LAMAURGINALD ROLAND,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

JOHNSON, J.

LUI, J.

AI Brief