People v. Webster CA5

Filed 10/22/15 P. v. Webster CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F068412 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F13901441) v.

DAVID ALLEN WEBSTER, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Hilary A. Chittick, Judge. Sylvia Beckham, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez, Wanda Hill Rouzan, and Clara Levers, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Gomes, J. and Detjen, J.

INTRODUCTION Defendant David Allen Webster appeals from his convictions for attempted murder and aggravated mayhem. In his appeal, defendant argues the trial court erred by imposing the maximum restitution fine of $10,000, despite having waived the courtroom security and criminal conviction assessment fees due to defendant’s inability to pay. We affirm the restitution fine, and remand to the trial court for imposition of the waived fees. FACTS On February 10, 2013, defendant went to the home of his 94-year-old mother, where he then shot his brother in the stomach and face in his mother’s presence. As a result of the shooting, defendant’s brother lost his right eye, a portion of his right hand, and use of the left side of his body. Following a bench trial, the trial court found defendant guilty of both attempted murder and aggravated mayhem, and sentenced him to a term of life in prison without the possibility of parole. The trial court waived the courtroom security and criminal conviction assessment fees on the basis of defendant’s inability to pay, but imposed the maximum restitution fine of $10,000. This appeal followed. DISCUSSION I. The trial court did not err by imposing the maximum restitution fine of $10,000. Defendant argues the trial court erred by assessing the maximum restitution fine amount of $10,000, despite making a finding that defendant lacked the ability to pay.1 We disagree. “In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary