People v. Hidalgo CA6

Filed 10/27/20 P. v. Hidalgo CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H047590 (Monterey County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. SS131471A)

v.

JOSE RENEE HIDALGO,

Defendant and Appellant.

I. INTRODUCTION In 2013, defendant Jose Renee Hidalgo pleaded guilty to possession of a controlled substance in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.6)1 and admitted a prior strike allegation (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)). Pursuant to the terms of the negotiated disposition, the trial court sentenced defendant to six years. The court also imposed a restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)). Defendant did not appeal from the judgment. In 2019, relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), defendant moved the trial court in pro per to reduce the restitution fine from $1,680 to the current statutory minimum of $300 based on his inability to pay.2 The trial court summarily

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. At the time of defendant’s offense, the statutory minimum for the restitution fine 2

was $280. (Former § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1), added by Stats. 2012, ch. 873, § 1.5.)

denied the motion by written order “based on the defendant’s failure to object to the imposition of the fine and his failure to demonstrate the fines are ‘unpayable’ pursuant to . . . Dueñas.” (Italics added.) Defendant now appeals from the trial court’s order denying his motion to reduce the restitution fine. As we will explain, we conclude that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to hear defendant’s postjudgment Dueñas motion. (See People v. Torres (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1084, 1088 (Torres).) Accordingly, the trial court’s order denying the motion is nonappealable and the case must be dismissed. (See ibid.) II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A. Factual Background The factual basis for defendant’s plea was counsel’s statement that “on January 8 of 2013, [defendant], while an inmate at Correctional Training Facility in the county of Monterey, was in possession of heroin, which is a useable amount.” B. Charges, Plea, and Sentence On July 26, 2013, defendant was charged by complaint with possession of a controlled substance in prison (§ 4573.6). The complaint also alleged that defendant had been convicted of five prior strikes (§ 1170.12, subd. (c)(2)). On September 11, 2013, pursuant to a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded guilty to the charge and admitted one of the strike allegations. The trial court sentenced defendant to six years consecutive to any terms defendant was currently serving. The trial court also imposed a restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)). The reporter’s transcript states that the court imposed a $280 restitution fine; the sentencing minutes and the abstract of judgment state that the court imposed a $1,680 restitution fine. C. Motion to Reduce the Restitution Fine and the Trial Court’s Ruling On July 1, 2019, defendant filed a motion seeking a reduction of the restitution fine to the statutory minimum based on Dueñas. Defendant contended that the trial court’s