People v. Pedregon CA4/1

Filed 11/17/20 P. v. Pedregon CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076282

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD274253)

JOHN JOSEPH PEDREGON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Robert F. O’Neill, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Robin Urbanski and Mary Katherine Strickland, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant John Joseph Pedregon entered a plea agreement under which he pleaded guilty to one count of felony stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the balance of the charges against him

and a “No Opposition to Local Time” (NOLT) stipulation from the People. The trial court accepted the plea agreement, granted probation, and suspended imposition of sentence. Further, it imposed the following fines and fees: (1) a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); (2) a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); (3) a $154 criminal justice administration fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.1); and (4) a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); and it imposed and stayed (5) a $300 probation revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44). Pedregon violated the terms and conditions of his probation and the trial court therefore revoked probation. The court sentenced Pedregon to prison for the upper term of three years and re-imposed the criminal conviction assessment, the court operations assessment, the criminal justice administration fee, the restitution fine, and the previously-suspended probation revocation restitution fine. It also imposed, but stayed, a parole/postrelease community supervision revocation restitution fine of $300 (Pen. Code, § 1202.45). Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, Pedregon appeals the judgment solely on grounds that the trial court imposed the fines and fees at issue without determining he had the ability to pay them. Pedregon did not object to the fines and fees at the probation hearing, the sentencing hearing following the revocation of probation, or any time thereafter based on his alleged inability to pay. Penal Code section 1237.2 provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs unless the defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, the