People v. Brown CA3

Filed 7/12/21 P. v. Brown CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C089811

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 18CR003786, 19CR000314) v.

JOE LUGENE BROWN, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Joe Lugene Brown, Jr., pleaded guilty to possession of ammunition by a felon and, in a separate case, to possession of a firearm by a felon. On appeal, defendant argues (1) the trial court erroneously imposed fines without pronouncing them orally in defendant’s presence or obtaining a proper waiver, and (2) the trial court failed to award presentence custody and conduct credits against both concurrent sentences. We find defendant forfeited his right to challenge the imposition of fines on appeal, but agree

1

defendant is entitled to custody and conduct credits in both cases and amend the abstract of judgment accordingly. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND No discussion of the facts underlying the offense is necessary to the issues raised by defendant on appeal. Instead, we summarize the relevant procedural history. In case No. 18CR003786 (the 786 case), defendant was charged with three felonies arising from his alleged attempt to take a bulldozer while possessing a handgun, shotgun, and ammunition. In case No. 19CR000314 (the 314 case), defendant was charged with a felony and two misdemeanors arising from his possession of ammunition as a felon, receiving stolen property, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Defendant entered a plea of guilty to possession of ammunition by a felon (Pen. Code § 30305, subd. (a)(1))1 in the 314 case, and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) in the 786 case. The parties stipulated that defendant would receive a concurrent three-year term in state prison for each offense. Defendant further agreed to fines and fees in an amount to be determined by the court. At the sentencing hearing, with defendant present, the trial court announced it had read the probation department’s report for both cases. The report recommended defendant pay a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $600 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) for each of the two felonies. The trial court sentenced defendant per the parties’ stipulation and awarded conduct credits. The court then asked if both attorneys “waive formal reading of the remaining terms and conditions?” They agreed, and the court responded, “[t]hose are adopted in their entirety as if read into the record and incorporated into the judgment and sentence as to the two felonies.” The minute order from the hearing states, “[t]he Court adopts the terms and conditions listed at pages 1-5[]