People v. Lee CA3

Filed 5/20/21 P. v. Lee CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C083364

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16FE007428)

v.

LESHONE LEE,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Leshone Darsell Lee attempted to scam individuals out of money by feigning they hit him with their car. When one of his victims refused to give him money and insisted on calling the police, he displayed what appeared to be a gun and grabbed money from the victim’s purse. A jury convicted defendant of second degree robbery and misdemeanor drug possession. The trial court sentenced him to three years in prison. Defendant does not challenge his convictions on appeal. Rather, his sole contention is that the court intended to impose the minimum restitution fines under Penal

1

Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, but mistakenly believed that that amount was $400 rather than the actual statutory minimum of $300.1 The People agree, and request that we modify the restitution fines on appeal rather than remand the matter to the trial court so as to preserve judicial resources. Because we conclude defendant’s appeal is not cognizable under section 1237.2, we must dismiss it. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND2 Defendant was charged with second degree robbery (§ 211), extortion by means of force and threat (§ 520), and misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)). A jury found him guilty of robbery and possession of a controlled substance, but acquitted him of extortion. On November 1, 2016, the court sentenced defendant to the midterm of three years in state prison for the robbery conviction, and a concurrent six-month term for the drug possession offense. The court assessed various fines and fees, including a restitution fine of $400 pursuant to section 1202.4 and a matching $400 parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45, the latter stayed pending successful completion of parole. Regarding the restitution fine, the court initially ordered defendant to pay a restitution fine in the amount of $900, which it called the statutory minimum. Defense counsel then informed the court that she thought the minimum was $400. She also asked the court to “impose the minimum fines and fees.” The court then asked the prosecutor whether she knew the statutory minimum restitution fine. Although the prosecutor said she did not believe $900 was the minimum, she was unsure of the exact minimum amount. Following this exchange with counsel, the court imposed a $400 restitution fine