People v. Velez CA5

California Court of Appeal May 26, 2021 No. F080015Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the imposition of fines and fees by failing to object at sentencing, that trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object, and that the defendant's constitutional claims failed on the merits.

Issues

Whether the defendant forfeited his challenge to the imposition of fines, fees, and assessments by failing to object at sentencing.
Whether trial counsel provided ineffective assistance by failing to object to the imposition of fines and fees based on an inability to pay.
Whether the imposition of fines and fees without an ability-to-pay hearing violates due process or the Eighth Amendment.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“we conclude defendant forfeited his claim that imposition of the fines, fees, and court assessments was unconstitutional, his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance, and, in any event, his Dueñas claim fails on its merits.”

“Defense counsel could have reasonably determined that it was more beneficial to defendant to accept the lower restitution fine amount rather than object to the fines, fees, and court assessments”

Filed 5/26/21 P. v. Velez CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, F080015 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F19903111) v.

JAVIER ZAMORA VELEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Heather Mardel Jones, Judge. Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Jamie A. Scheidegger, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.

INTRODUCTION Based on events that occurred in Fresno County in April 2019, defendant Javier Zamora Velez was charged in Fresno Superior Court case No. F19903111 with unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle exceeding $950 in value (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1), receiving a stolen vehicle exceeding $950 in value (Pen. Code, § 496d, subd. (a); count 2),1 carrying a concealed dirk or dagger (§ 21310; count 3), misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a); count 4), and misdemeanor hit and run (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a); count 5).2 On June 21, 2019, in exchange for a maximum possible sentence of four years, dismissal of the remaining four counts and dismissal of a separate case, Fresno Superior Court case No. F19903110, defendant pleaded no contest to count 1, unlawfully driving or taking a vehicle. He also admitted the vehicle’s value exceeded $950; admitted he had a 2016 prior serious felony conviction for attempted robbery within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)); and admitted he violated parole in the 2016 case. On August 20, 2019, in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain, the trial court sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years on count 1, doubled to four years under the Three Strikes law. In addition, the court imposed, without objection, a restitution fine of $300 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1); a parole revocation restitution fine of $300 under section 1202.45, subdivision (a), suspended; a court operations assessment of $40 under section 1465.8; a court facilities assessment of $30 under Government Code section 70373; and a probation report fee of $296 under section 1203.1b.

People v. Velez CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief