People v. Chapin CA4/3

Filed 11/30/20 P. v. Chapin 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, G057358

v. (Super. Ct. No. 16HF0810)

EDWARD DWIGHT CHAPIN, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Michael F. Murray, Judge. Affirmed in part and remanded with directions. Johanna Pirko, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Stephanie C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Edward Chapin appeals from the imposition of two assessments imposed in 2016 in connection with his guilty plea to a receiving stolen property charge. The first is the $300 mandatory state restitution fine, which he contends was not mentioned when he was sentenced to jail in 2019 after he violated his probation. The second is the $70 per count conviction fee, which he contends should not have been imposed without a hearing on his ability to pay. In making this second contention, he relies on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), a controversial case holding that an indigent woman was entitled to a hearing on her ability to pay multiple and serial impositions of fines for not paying fines. We affirm both assessments. Chapin agreed to pay the $300 restitution fine when he pleaded guilty in 2016. It was not necessary for the court to impose this fine again in 2019, when he went to jail. As for not getting a hearing on his ability to pay $140 in conviction fees, nothing in the record remotely suggests that Chapin’s circumstances resemble those of the appellant in Dueñas. He agreed in 2016 to pay the fees as part of his plea bargain, and nothing indicates he was being punished, as was the Dueñas appellant, for being poor. He was not entitled to a hearing in 2019 on his ability to pay fees he had already agreed to pay. However, because the abstract of judgment does not reflect the conviction fees, we return the matter to the trial court to correct the abstract to add any fees or fines that were inadvertently omitted. FACTS In June 2016, Chapin was charged with second degree burglary, felony receiving stolen property, and misdemeanor vandalism. He was also charged with four prior prison conviction enhancements. Representing himself, he entered into a plea bargain whereby the burglary count and the priors were dismissed and he pled guilty to receiving stolen property and vandalism. As part of the plea bargain, he agreed the court