People v. Israel CA2/3

Filed 8/26/16 P. v. Israel CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE

THE PEOPLE, B268629

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA081122) v.

DAVID ISRAEL,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mark E. Windham, Judge. Affirmed. James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _____________________

Defendant and appellant, David Israel, appeals a decision by the trial court after this court remanded for resentencing. Israel was convicted of lewd act on a child under 14, with recidivist sexual offender and prior serious felony conviction findings (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a), 667.71, 667, subds. (b)-(i)).1 He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 55 years to life. In People v. Israel (B252966), an unpublished opinion filed on February 4, 2015 (Edmon, P. J. with Kitching & Aldrich, JJ.), we affirmed Israel’s conviction, vacated one of his sentences, and remanded for resentencing regarding the imposition of certain fines and assessments. The judgment entered following resentencing upon remand is affirmed. BACKGROUND While riding a public bus, Israel pushed himself up against an eight-year-old passenger who was on a school trip. Israel fondled the girl’s knee, then took out his penis and began rubbing it on her leg. An adult chaperone intervened. Israel has a long history of similar sexual behavior on public buses. He was sentenced to state prison for a term of 55 years to life. On the initial appeal, both Israel and the Attorney General raised sentencing issues. We agreed with Israel that a child abuse prevention restitution fine imposed pursuant to section 294 should be stricken because the offense for which he was convicted, child molesting under section 288, is not one of the offenses enumerated in either subdivision (a) or subdivision (b) of section 294.2 We also concluded the trial court erred by not imposing appropriate penalties and surcharges in connection with fines imposed under sections 290.3 and 288, subdivision (e). We then remanded the case for the trial court to determine Israel’s ability to pay the penalties and surcharges that should have been imposed under sections 290.3 and 288, subdivision (e).