People v. Chapman CA4/3

Filed 10/29/20 P. v. Chapman CA4/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, G057823

v. (Super. Ct. No. 18WF2368)

CHRISTOPHER SCOTT CHAPMAN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, John Conley, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded for resentencing. Paul R. Kraus, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland and Scott C. Taylor, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

* * *

Defendant Christopher Scott Chapman was convicted of one count of 1 felony vandalism (Pen. Code, § 594, subds. (a), (b)(1)). Additionally, defendant admitted he had a previous strike conviction (§§ 667, subd. (d), 1170.12, subds. (b), (c)(1)), and two prior prison convictions (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). He was sentenced to a total of five years and assessed various fines and fees. On appeal, he contends, and the Attorney General concedes, that a recent amendment to section 667.5 (Stats. 2019, ch. 590, § 1) applies to him and this court should strike the prior prison sentence enhancements. We agree and order the enhancements stricken, and remand the case to the trial court for resentencing. He also contends his due process rights were violated by the imposition of fines and fees without a determination he was able to pay them, citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). While he has arguably forfeited this claim by failing to raise it in the trial court, we find no error on the merits. Defendant’s circumstances are entirely dissimilar to those of the defendant in Dueñas, and there is no suggestion at all in the record that he lacks any ability to pay. Any error was at most harmless. Accordingly, we reject this argument and affirm the remainder of the judgment.