People v. Williams CA3

Filed 3/8/21 P. v. Williams CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C090802

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19FE010630)

v.

GERALD P. WILLIAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant, Gerald P. Williams, filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We will modify the judgment to include mandatory fees and direct the trial court to issue an amended abstract of judgment. We find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant and affirm the judgment as modified.

1

We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 124.)

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Defendant threatened the two victims in an argument at a shopping mall and was charged with two counts of making criminal threats (Pen. Code, § 422; statutory section references that follow are to the Penal Code). Defendant pleaded no contest to one count of criminal threats and admitted a prior strike conviction under sections 667 and 1170.12. The parties agreed to a factual basis for the plea, stating defendant “willfully and unlawfully threatened to commit a crime which would result in death and great bodily injury to [the victim] with the specific intent that the statement be taken as a threat. [¶] . . . [T]he threat was so unequivocal, unconditional, and immediate as to convey to [the victim] a gravity of purpose and an immediate prospect of execution. [¶] It’s further alleged that the victim was reasonably in sustained fear for her safety.” The court dismissed the outstanding count. Shortly before sentencing, defendant requested a hearing under People v. Marsden (1970) 2 Cal.3d 118, asking to discharge his court-appointed counsel. The trial court denied the motion. The trial court proceeded to sentence defendant in accordance with the stipulated plea agreement to the lower term of 16 months, doubled based on his prior strike conviction, for a total aggregate sentence of 32 months. Defendant did not raise the issue of his ability to pay any fines or fees. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine and $40 court operations fee and waived all other “fines, fees, and costs in the interest of justice.” The abstract of judgment and minute order issued after the hearing reflect imposition of the minimum mandatory fines and fees: a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a suspended $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).