People v. Huggins CA2/2

Filed 4/2/21 P. v. Huggins CA2/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B306062

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA089399) v.

DARRELL HUGGINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael Terrell, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Lenore De Vita, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Stephanie C. Santoro, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Darrell Tyrone Huggins appeals from the judgment entered after he was resentenced following our prior decision on appeal vacating his original sentence.1 Defendant contends that the trial court erred in imposing a sex offender fine after finding that defendant did not have the ability to pay fines and fees, and that he is entitled to three additional days of presentence custody credit. Defendant also seeks correction of the court’s minutes and abstract of judgment to accurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncements. We agree that the trial court erred in imposing the sex offender fine and that defendant is entitled to additional custody credit. As respondent forfeited below any objection to defendant’s remaining contentions as well as on appeal, we order the correction of the court’s minutes and abstract of judgment as requested by both defendant and respondent.

BACKGROUND In 2018, defendant was convicted of assault to commit rape in violation of Penal Code section 220, subdivision (a)(1)2 (count 1), and dissuading a witness by force or threat in violation of section 136.1, subdivision (c)(1) (count 2). Defendant admitted two prior robbery convictions as serious felonies, but did not admit that they qualified as strikes. The trial court found that the convictions qualified as strikes, and sentenced defendant as a third strike offender to a total prison term of 30 years to life as to