People v. Palaita CA1/4

Filed 12/15/20 P. v. Palaita CA1/4

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A157840

v. (Del Norte County FONOTELE PALAITA, Super. Ct. Nos. CRF 19-9124, CRF 19-9168) Defendant and Appellant.

Fonotele Palaita filed this appeal after pleading guilty to weapon possession charges pursuant to a negotiated disposition. He contends the trial court committed constitutional error by requiring him to pay restitution fines without conducting an ability-to-pay hearing in accordance with People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On May 14, 2019, Palaita pled guilty to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and one felony count of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (§ 21310).1 These pleas were part of a negotiated disposition of two pending cases, which contemplated that other charges would be dismissed, Palaita would be sentenced to probation, and if

1 Statutory references are to the Penal Code except as otherwise noted.

1

probation was not successful, his maximum term would be four years and four months in prison. Palaita agreed that if he failed to appear for sentencing, his guilty pleas would remain in effect, but the court would “not be bound by any sentence bargain.” As part of his plea bargain, Palaita executed a felony plea declaration in which he acknowledged, among other things, that in entering guilty pleas he could receive penalties and consequences in addition to incarceration. Relevant here, Palaita acknowledged that for each offense the court could impose “[a] fine up to $10,000.00 plus penalty assessment.” Palaita failed to appear for sentencing and was subsequently arrested. On June 13, 2019, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of three years in prison. In each of his cases, Palaita was also ordered to pay the following fines and fees: a $300 restitution fund fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); a $300 parole revocation fine, which was stayed (§ 1202.45); a $40 court operations fee for each conviction (§ 1465.8); and a $30 conviction assessment for each conviction (Gov. Code, § 70373). On July 12, 2019, Palaita filed a notice of appeal, which states that his appeal is based on his “sentence or other matters occurring after the plea that do not affect the validity of [his] plea[s].” On January 6, 2020, Palaita’s appellate counsel sent a letter to the sentencing judge, requesting that the court exercise its retained jurisdiction under section 1237.2 to stay Palaita’s restitution fines and court fees “until such time as the prosecution proves [he] has a current ability to pay them.” The court denied this request May 4, 2020, noting that the law was unsettled and that Palaita had not made an objection at his sentencing hearing.2