People v. Binion CA3

Filed 3/24/16 P. v. Binion CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

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

THE PEOPLE, C079427

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 12F2333)

v.

JEREMY JAMES BINION,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jeremy James Binion was charged by consolidated information with eight counts of first degree residential burglary (Pen. Code, § 459),1 one count of attempted first degree residential burglary (§§ 664, 459), and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)). The consolidated information also alleged facts to support several sentence enhancements. On July 5, 2013, defendant entered a plea agreement for a stipulated term of 25 years in prison. Defendant pleaded no contest to four counts of first degree burglary and admitted the facts supporting two enhancements

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

(§§ 667, subd. (a)(1), 1170.12). The balance was dismissed with a Harvey2 waiver stating the judge could consider the facts of the dismissed charges in ordering victim restitution. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court violated his right to self- representation by denying his right to present evidence at his restitution hearing. We disagree. Defendant sought to represent himself after the presentation of evidence and argument regarding restitution, and the trial court granted his request. We also deny as unnecessary his requests for a remand as to the determination of his co-defendant’s case and that his restitution order be made to reflect joint and several liability if she was convicted. The restitution order already reflects joint and several liability. The People ask that we order the abstract of judgment corrected to accurately reflect the restitution and assessments orally pronounced by the court. We shall order correction of the abstract of judgment, but otherwise affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND Defendant was sentenced on July 2, 2014. The trial court ordered him to pay restitution and parole revocation fines of $1,200 each (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45), the latter of which the court stayed pending successful completion of parole. The court also ordered defendant to pay a court operations assessment of $160 (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a criminal conviction assessment of $120 (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a crime prevention fee of $39 (§ 1202.5). The court reserved victim restitution and set a hearing. On March 13, 2015, the court and counsel discussed the status of restitution and various pieces of evidence informally. Then, defendant’s Marsden3 motion was heard and denied. It was not the first such motion defendant made in the action, but it was the first since sentencing.