People v. Ordonez CA4/3

Filed 8/18/20 P. v. Ordonez CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, G057368 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17CF1100) v. OPINION WILSON ROBERTO ORDONEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John Conley, Judge. Affirmed. Stephen M. Lathrop, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen and Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. * * *

Following a jury trial in which Wilson Roberto Ordonez was convicted of two counts of aggravated sexual assault of his stepdaughter, a child under age 14, the trial court sentenced him to concurrent terms of 15 years to life in prison. (Pen. Code, §§ 269, 1 subds. (a)(1) & (a)(5); 261, subd. (a)(2); 289, subd. (a).) Invoking People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), Ordonez’s sole contention on appeal involves fines totaling up to $970 that the trial court imposed at sentencing. As we explain, we find the various permutations in which Ordonez raises the Dueñas issue without merit. We therefore affirm the judgment.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because the appeal concerns only the imposition of sentencing fines, we limit our background discussion accordingly. At Ordonez’s sentencing hearing in February 2019, a month after Dueñas was decided, the trial court imposed the mandatory $300 fine for sex offenses (§ 290.3, subd. (a)), the minimum $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court also imposed but suspended the minimum parole revocation fine of $300 (§ 1202.45), and advised Ordonez it would not apply if he did not gain or violate parole. The trial court did not conduct, as Ordonez now phrases it, “an ability-to-pay hearing” regarding the fines, nor did defense counsel request one. Ordonez did not object to the fines or suggest he could not pay them. He did not argue they were excessive in any manner and did not present any evidence of his financial condition or otherwise.