People v. Thompson CA2/3

Filed 12/21/20 P. v. Thompson CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B306159

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA041815) v.

DEWAN LEE THOMPSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Leslie E. Brown, Judge. Appeal dismissed. Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Dewan Lee Thompson of murder and other offenses. The trial court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole (LWOP) and imposed a $10,000 restitution fine. In 2019, Thompson unsuccessfully moved in the trial court to modify the restitution fine. He now appeals the trial court’s order denying his motion. Because the order is nonappealable, we dismiss the appeal. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 Thompson shot and killed his pregnant girlfriend when she tried to leave their apartment with one of her children. A jury convicted him of first degree murder, discharging a firearm at an inhabited dwelling, kidnapping, and assault with a firearm on a peace officer. The trial court sentenced him to LWOP, plus 55 years to life. It also imposed a $10,000 restitution fine. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) This court affirmed Thompson’s judgment (People v. Thompson (B167923, July 9, 2004) [nonpub. opn.]), and the California Supreme Court denied review in 2004. The remittitur issued on September 28, 2004. In 2019, Thompson, acting in propria persona, moved to modify the restitution fine. He argued that he was indigent, and imposition of the fine without an ability-to-pay determination violated his federal constitutional and state law rights. He urged that the “issue has not been waived by any perceived failure of the defendant inmate to object at the time of sentencing” because the fine amounted to an unauthorized sentence.