People v. Dusablon CA2/6

Filed 9/15/20 P. v. Dusablon CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B302577 (Super. Ct. No. 2018029780) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

CAMERON DUSABLON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Cameron Dusablon appeals a judgment following conviction of providing drugs to a person confined in jail, with a finding that he served a prior prison term. (Pen. Code, §§ 4573.9, subd. (a), 667.5, subd. (b).)1 We strike the prior prison term enhancement, reverse and remand for resentencing, but otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 19, 2019, Dusablon pleaded guilty to providing drugs to a person confined in jail, and admitted suffering a prior serious felony strike conviction and serving two prior prison

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

terms. (§§ 4573.9, subd. (a), 667, subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12, subds. (a) & (c), 667.5, subd. (b).) The prosecutor agreed that the trial court could impose any authorized sentence; the maximum sentence that could be imposed was 10 years. On September 17, 2019, the trial court sentenced Dusablon to a prison term of 28 months, including 16 months midterm for the crime and 12 months for the prior prison term enhancement. Pursuant to its tentative sentence commitment, the court struck the remaining findings. The trial court also found that Dusablon lacked the financial ability to pay the public defender fee and the presentence investigation fee. The court then imposed a $300 restitution fine, a $300 parole revocation restitution fine (suspended), a booking fee, and other fees. It stayed the restitution fine and booking fee, however, pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. In staying, the trial judge stated that he was referring the restitution fine and booking fee to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and would “let them determine whether [Dusablon] has the ability to pay from wages and trust accounts placed on his books while he’s a prisoner at the Department of Corrections on this case . . . .” Finally, the court awarded Dusablon 229 days of presentence custody credit. Dusablon appeals and contends that: 1) the prior prison term enhancement must be struck pursuant to recent amendments to section 667.5, subdivision (b), and 2) the trial court erred by ordering the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to determine his financial ability to pay the restitution fine and booking fee. The Attorney General concedes.