People v. Martinez CA5

Filed 9/24/20 P. v. Martinez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F078644 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Fresno Super. Ct. No. F18902975) v.

WILLIAM VASQUEZ MARTINEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. David Gottlieb, Judge. Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and Ian Whitney, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Peña, Acting P.J., Meehan, J. and DeSantos, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant/defendant William Vasquez Martinez pleaded no contest to a felony offense and was sentenced to state prison. The court ordered him to pay a restitution fine and other fees. While this appeal was pending, the court granted his request to “suspend” the fees because of his inability to pay, pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). In this appeal, the People have not contested the court’s decision but suggest the proper remedy is to “strike” the fees. We order a corrected minute order and abstract of judgment, and otherwise affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On or about April 16, 2017, defendant was an inmate at Pleasant Valley State Prison and found in possession of a controlled substance. On May 7, 2018, a felony complaint was filed that charged defendant with possession of drugs or alcohol in a jail facility (Pen. Code, § 4573.8),1 and alleged he had three prior strike convictions (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)). Defendant pleaded not guilty and denied the allegations. On November 8, 2018, Judge Gottlieb convened the scheduled preliminary hearing. However, the parties advised the court that defendant signed a plea agreement and entered into a negotiated disposition, and that he would plead no contest to the charged offense and admit the three prior strike convictions, based on the court’s indicated sentence that it would dismiss two of the three strike convictions and impose the second strike midterm of six years. As part of the agreement, defendant was advised that in addition to his prison sentence, he could be ordered to pay fines up to $10,000 and a restitution fine between