People v. Martin CA3

Filed 9/25/20 P. v. Martin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C088046

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. NCR92857, NCR96148, NCR97244) v.

TERA LYN MARTIN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Tera Lyn Martin pleaded guilty to multiple charges in several consolidated cases. Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing restitution fines and two set of assessments without holding a hearing to determine her ability to pay them. We will affirm the judgment.

1

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The details of defendant’s crimes of conviction are irrelevant to the resolution of her sole claim on appeal. It suffices to say that defendant pleaded guilty to multiple drug charges and allegations in a total of three cases and was placed on probation; the trial court subsequently revoked her probation and sentenced her to an aggregate term of nine- years eight-months incarceration. As relevant here, the trial court imposed (by incorporation of the probation report) three $600 restitution fines pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b),1 a $240 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $180 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).2 Defendant did not object to these fines and fees at sentencing. Defendant subsequently filed a section 1237.2 motion requesting a hearing on her ability to pay the fines and assessments imposed. The court held a hearing on the motion; it first noted that “the Dueñas case is not binding on this court” and then added that because there was no objection or request for a hearing at the time the fines and assessments were imposed, defendant’s claims were forfeited. Defendant timely appeals from the judgment. DISCUSSION Relying on Dueñas, defendant argues that the trial court violated her right to due process by imposing restitution fines and the mandatory court operations and criminal conviction assessments without holding a hearing to determine her ability to pay them. The Attorney General argues forfeiture as well as the absence of any violation of the