People v. Young CA3

Filed 5/13/16 P. v. Young CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C078870

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF1511)

v.

JASON GRANT YOUNG,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jason Grant Young pleaded no contest to oral copulation of his daughter, A.Y., a child less than 10 years old. The trial court sentenced him to prison for a term of 15 years to life and ordered that defendant would have no visitation with his children S.Y. and A.Y. Among other things, the trial court also ordered defendant to pay a $10,000 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4.1

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in ordering no visitation with S.Y., who was not a named victim, and erroneously listed his wife’s birthday on the no- visitation order instead of A.Y.’s. Defendant further contends the trial court incorrectly ordered him to pay a $60 DNA surcharge, which he contends should only be a $30 surcharge, and the trial court abused its discretion in ordering him to pay a $10,000 restitution fine. We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering defendant to pay a $10,000 restitution fine. We accept the People’s concession that the no-visitation order must be corrected to eliminate S.Y. and correct A.Y.’s birth date, and the DNA surcharge must be reduced to $30. We also accept defendant’s concession that the trial court should have imposed a $120 DNA penalty under Government Code section 76104.7. We will amend the judgment accordingly and affirm the judgment as amended. BACKGROUND On January 6, 2015, the People charged defendant with four counts of sexually abusing his daughter, A.Y., who was then five years old. Defendant pleaded no contest to oral copulation of a child under 10 years old. (§ 288.7, subd. (b).) In exchange for defendant’s plea, the People agreed they would move to dismiss the remaining charges and stipulate to a term of 15 years to life in state prison. On January 14, 2015, the trial court accepted defendant’s plea. The trial court later sentenced defendant in accordance with his plea and dismissed the remaining charges. The court also followed the recommendation of the probation department and ordered defendant to pay a $10,000 restitution fine, despite defendant’s request that the court set the fine “as low as possible.” The court explained that “[g]iven the gravity of the offense, I believe . . . it’s appropriate.” The court also ordered defendant to pay, among other fines and fees, a $300 base fine under Penal Code section 290.3, to which the court appended a $60 DNA surcharge