People v. Machen CA3

Filed 6/17/21 P. v. Machen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C092827

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STK-CR- FECOD-2020-0001455) v.

MATTHEW JOHN MACHEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Matthew John Machen pleaded no contest to unauthorized possession of drugs or alcoholic beverages in prison (Pen. Code, § 4573.8; count 4).1 The trial court sentenced him to the low term of one year four months in prison, and imposed various fines, fees, and assessments that defendant now challenges on appeal.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

We conclude defendant forfeited his claim of inability to pay by failing to assert it in the trial court. Further, defendant presented no evidence of his inability to pay. Accordingly, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Due to the limited nature of the claim on appeal, we need not recite the facts of defendant’s crimes in detail. It suffices to say that he pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine inside a California penal institution. At sentencing, the trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Thereafter, defendant’s counsel said, “[Defendant is] asking The Court consider either suspending his fines and fees or running them concurrent to the time he’s doing, pursuant to [§] 1205(a) . . . . He’s asking The Court consider running his fines and fees concurrent.” The trial court responded: “I’m going to deny that at this time.” DISCUSSION Defendant contends the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s request to suspend his fines, fees, and assessments, violating his right to due process. He argues that the circumstances of having appointed counsel and being incarcerated at the time of the crime suggested that he had no assets and thus no ability to pay. The Attorney General argues only that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. We first note that it appears section 1237.2 applies in this case and precludes defendant’s claim. (§ 1237.2; People v. Alexander (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 798, 801.) Section 1237.2 provides in relevant part that an appeal may not be taken from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition of fines, fees, and other charges unless a defendant presents the claim in the trial court at the time of sentencing or first makes a motion for correction in the trial court.