People v. El CA3

Filed 6/1/21 P. v. El CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091339

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR-FER- 2018-0003013) v.

YAMIN AMAHLI BONGANI EL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Yamin Amahli Bongani El appeals the sentence imposed after a jury found him guilty of misdemeanor driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)). He contends the trial court: (1) failed to exercise its discretion in sentencing him to the maximum term in jail, as it believed such a term was mandatory when he declined probation; and (2) failed to articulate the fines and fees imposed. The People properly concede. We shall vacate the sentence, remand for resentencing, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND The substantive facts underlying defendant’s conviction are not relevant to the issues on appeal and are therefore not recounted here. The trial court indicated it intended to sentence defendant to three years’ informal probation, with credit for nine days served. Defense counsel indicated defendant would not consent to a grant of probation. In response, the trial court stated, “So then he has to have the six months is the max. You have to have six months in jail if he’s not going to consent to probation.” The trial court then indicated it would reduce the grant of informal probation to one year and continued, “[t]his is not negotiable at this point, this is sentencing. So he can either take no fine, because he’s got credit and one year informal probation with obey all laws, don’t commit a same or similar offense. Or if he wants to reject probation, then six months in jail . . . .” After consulting with defendant, counsel again stated defendant would not consent to probation. Defense counsel also asked the court to exercise its discretion to impose a sentence of less than six months. The People indicated they understood that if defendant did not accept probation, the trial court was required to sentence him to the maximum term. The trial court agreed with the People’s statement of the law. As to fines and fees, the trial court’s only statement prior to sentencing was it had looked at “$125 a day, he has 9 days, he would have done 11, 25 on the fine and the range is between 829 to 1,409.” The trial court then imposed sentence. “So what I’m going to do, because he’s rejecting probation and I would have given him one year probation and some conditions, I won’t impose any conditions and I’ll just order him to serve six months in county jail and he can have credit for the nine days against the sentence, I’ll do that, and I’ll suspend the fine.” Pursuant to defense counsel’s request, the sentence was stayed for 180 days, pending appeal. The minute order reflects imposition of a $1,409 fine, suspended; a $150