People v. Suarez CA2/1

Filed 9/29/20 P. v. Suarez CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 ONE

THE PEOPLE, B305883

Plaintiff and (Los Angeles County Respondent, Super. Ct. No. MA062937)

v.

JUAN CARLOS SUAREZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Lisa Mangay Chung, Judge. Dismissed. Juan Carlos Suarez, in pro. per.; and Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. ____________________________

In 2015, Juan Carlos Suarez entered a negotiated plea of no contest to a charge of possessing heroin in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6, subd. (a))1 based on an incident that happened in 2013. (People v. Suarez (Aug. 24, 2016, B267996) [nonpub. opn.], p. 2.) As part of his sentence, the trial court ordered Suarez to pay a restitution fine of $1,200 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b) and imposed and stayed an additional $1,200 parole, postrelease community supervision, or mandatory supervision restitution fine under section 1202.45. We affirmed the judgment in 2016. (Suarez, at p. 4.) On December 11, 2019, Suarez filed a motion in the trial court challenging the two restitution fines based on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). Suarez requested that the trial court stay the execution of the restitution fines because the trial court did not make a finding that he was able to pay the fines. The trial court denied Suarez’s motion on March 10, 2020. Suarez timely appealed and we appointed counsel to represent him on appeal. After examining the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and asking this court to independently review the record. (People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496; People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023.) Counsel notified Suarez that he would be filing a brief, that Suarez was entitled to file a supplemental brief with this court, and that counsel remained available to brief any issues upon our request. We also notified Suarez that he was entitled to file a supplemental brief.