People v. Gonzalez CA6

Filed 2/24/21 P. v. Gonzalez CA6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H047757 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. C1905602)

v.

BRYAN JESUS GONZALEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Bryan Jesus Gonzalez appeals the imposition by the trial court of fines and fees in his criminal case after the court found he did not have the present ability to pay them and without holding an evidentiary hearing on his ability to pay. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the judgment. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND The facts of Gonzalez’s offenses are irrelevant to the issues in this appeal. On March 26, 2019, Gonzalez was charged by complaint with carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215, subd. (a); count 1)1, misdemeanor hit-and-run driving causing property damage (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); count 2), misdemeanor possession of burglar tools (§ 466;count

1 Unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3), and misdemeanor driving while unlicensed (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a); count 4).2 In connection with count 1, the complaint alleged that Gonzalez personally used a semi- automatic handgun in the commission of the carjacking. (§ 12022.53, subd. (b).) The complaint also alleged that Gonzalez had suffered a prior violent or serious felony conviction (strike prior) (§§ 667, subd. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and a prior serious felony (§ 667, subd. (a).) On November 4, 2019, Gonzalez pleaded no contest to the carjacking charge in count 1 and admitted the strike prior pursuant to a plea agreement in which he agreed to serve six years’ imprisonment. On January 3, 2020, the trial court sentenced Gonzalez to six years’ imprisonment on count 1 with credit for time served of 336 days and dismissed the remaining counts.3 Regarding the fines, fees, and assessments, Gonzalez requested that the trial court impose the minimum restitution fine of $300 and stay all fines and fees pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). Gonzalez’s counsel noted that Gonzalez would be paying $917 in restitution, and the People had not presented any evidence Gonzalez would be incarcerated in a prison where he would be able to earn any money. As an offer of proof, Gonzalez’s defense counsel indicated that Gonzalez had been unemployed for a long period of time and did not know whether he would be able to work in prison. Gonzalez’s defense counsel also asserted that Gonzalez was prepared to testify to these facts. The trial court accepted Gonzalez’s offer of proof and “stipulate[d]” that Gonzalez “at the very current time” had no ability to pay the fines and fees. In response to