People v. Taylor CA2/5

Filed 1/12/21 P. v. Taylor CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE B304844 OF CALIFORNIA, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. KA122140)

v.

REGINALD LEON TAYLOR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed. Richard B. Lennon, 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, Assistant Attorney General, Stephanie C. Brenan and Toni R. Johns Estaville, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION Defendant appeals from his conviction for carrying a dirk or dagger following a no contest plea, arguing that the trial court erred under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas) by refusing to stay the $300 minimum restitution fine and vacate $70 in assessments. He argues that the court’s ability to pay finding was unsupported. We affirm. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Defendant attempted to steal two sets of headphones from a Target store. When officers detained him, they discovered a knife in his pocket. In an information, the People charged defendant with one count of carrying a concealed dirk or dagger and one misdemeanor count of shoplifting. The information alleged defendant suffered multiple prior convictions for serious and/or violent felonies within the meaning of the Three Strikes Law. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant pled no contest to carrying a concealed dirk or dagger and admitted to a single “strike.” The court sentenced defendant to 32 months (16 months, doubled for the strike). At the hearing, defense counsel objected to the imposition of fines and fees. Counsel stated: “If I could just indicate to the court that [defendant] is indigent and has no permanent residence. I’d ask the court to consider waiving any fines and fees, restitution. There was no loss. There is no restitution.” The court responded: “Well, I’ll note under recent case law the amount of time he has in state prison I think is sufficient time to pay the $370. So thank you.” The court ordered defendant to pay a $300 parole restitution revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4(b)), $40 court operations assessment fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), and $30 court facilities assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373).