People v. Hopkins CA3

Filed 5/24/21 P. v. Hopkins CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C092027

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 19CF02691, 19CF02339) v.

JOHN DOUGLAS HOPKINS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant John Douglas Hopkins pleaded guilty to failure to appear on his own recognizance and first degree burglary, and he admitted an out-of-custody enhancement. On appeal, he relies on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 to contend the trial court violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and to be free from excessive fines by imposing various fees, fines, and assessments without first determining his ability to pay. To the extent he failed to object to the financial obligations when imposed, he argues his counsel was constitutionally ineffective.

1

We reject the Dueñas challenge and derivative ineffective assistance claim and affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In case No. 19CF02339 (No. 2339), defendant’s probation officer reported that defendant failed to appear for a court hearing in another pending criminal case, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. Defendant was charged with failure to appear on his own recognizance (Pen. Code, § 1320, subd. (b)),1 and it was alleged that he was out of custody within the meaning of section 12022.1 at the time of the offense. In case No. 19CF02691 (No. 2691), the probation officer reported that defendant walked near the window of a residence, proceeded to the front porch, and attempted to open the front door of the home. Approximately one month later, he entered another residence and attempted to remove several electronic items. He was charged with first degree burglary (§ 459; count 1) and misdemeanor prowling (§ 647, subd. (h); count 2). As to count 1, it was further alleged that defendant was out of custody within the meaning of section 12022.1 at the time of the offense and that he had served a prior prison term within the meaning of section 667.5, subdivision (b). Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to appear on his own recognizance in No. 2339 and to first degree burglary in No. 2691, and he admitted the section 12022.1 allegation in No. 2691. In exchange, the remaining charges and allegations were dismissed, and defendant faced a maximum term of eight years eight months in state prison. On May 27, 2020, the trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of six years eight months in state prison. The court imposed fees, fines, and assessments without objection, and awarded defendant custody and conduct credits. Defendant timely appealed.