People v. Harper CA2/6

Filed 8/20/20 P. v. Harper CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B302033 (Super. Ct. Nos. 18CR8466, Plaintiff and Respondent, 19CR04163) (Santa Barbara County) v.

RAMON MARQUEZ HARPER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Ramon Marquez Harper pled no contest to one count of robbery (Pen. Code, § 211)1 in case number 18CR08466 and two counts of inflicting corporal injury on a spouse or cohabitant (§ 273.5, subd. (a)), in case number 19CR04163. He also admitted to having one prior strike conviction. The trial court imposed an agreed-upon sentence of 8 years in state prison and ordered appellant to pay restitution fines totaling $600 (§1202.4) and parole revocation fines in the same amount.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

(§1202.45.) Appellant contends the trial court erred when it refused to stay the restitution fines based on his inability to pay. (See, e.g., People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas).) We affirm. FACTS The facts of appellant’s substantive offenses are not relevant here, because he challenges only imposition of the restitution fines. Briefly, appellant and a co-defendant used a large kitchen knife to rob the guests at a house party in Santa Barbara. In a separate incident, appellant struck his girlfriend in the mouth, causing injury. He later pinched and twisted the skin of his girlfriend’s leg, causing her to bleed. At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed the agreed upon sentence of eight years. It imposed various fines and assessments, a restitution fine of $300 in each case (§1202.4) and a parole revocation restitution fine of $300 in each case. (§1202.45.) Appellant’s trial counsel stated, “I would just make the application of People v. Duenas as it relates to any and all fines and fees the Court assesses under that case and others that follow.” (Italics added.) The prosecutor argued “Dueñas is no longer binding on this Court. There’s a case that came down that specifically disagreed with Dueñas. You look under an 8th Amendment analysis under cruel and unusual for the fines.” (Italics added.) The trial court replied, “As to the fine, the Court has reduced it to the minimum $300 [§]1202.45 fine in each case.” DISCUSSION Relying on Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, appellant contends the trial court erred when it declined to stay the restitution fine entirely, because he is indigent. He asserts that,