People v. Martinez CA2/6

Filed 3/15/21 P. v. Martinez CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B307311 (Super. Ct. No. 2020015525) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

JONATHAN PETER MARTINEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

Jonathan Peter Martinez appeals a judgment following his conviction for second degree robbery. (Pen. Code, § 211.)1 The trial court sentenced him to an aggregate prison term of two years. It also imposed a $300 restitution fine. (§ 1202.4.) We conclude Martinez has not shown that the trial court erred by imposing the $300 restitution fine. (§ 1202.4.) We affirm.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

FACTS On May 30, 2020, Juan Munoz rode his bicycle to a donut shop. He went into the shop and he “secured” the bicycle “with a lock.” When Munoz came out of the shop, he confronted Martinez who was on Munoz’s bicycle and attempting to ride away. Martinez told Munoz to take the lock off his bicycle. Munoz refused. Martinez then pulled out a “black firearm.” He told Munoz to remove the lock from his bicycle. Munoz complied. Martinez took the bicycle and road away on Munoz’s bicycle. Munoz contacted the police. Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, Martinez pled guilty to second degree robbery. In that written plea agreement, he acknowledged, among other things, that he “will be ordered to pay a restitution fine of not less than $300 and not more than $10,000.” In sentencing, the trial court imposed the lowest possible restitution fine of $300. At the sentencing hearing, Martinez’s counsel did not request an evidentiary hearing on Martinez’s ability to pay fines, and counsel did not introduce any evidence on that issue. DISCUSSION Validity of the $300 Fine Martinez contends the trial court erred in imposing a $300 restitution fine. Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, he claims the court did not consider his ability to pay the fine before it was imposed, and consequently it must be set aside. He claims his counsel raised this issue in the trial court.