People v. Duran CA4/1

Filed 7/13/21 P. v. Duran CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D077346

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD280275)

CARLOS REGINO DURAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Melinda J. Lasater, Judge. Dismissed. Russell S. Babcock, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steve Oetting and Heather B. Arambarri, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Appellant Carlos Regino Duran was convicted of various offenses in three separate cases, but was sentenced in a single proceeding. His sole claim on appeal is that under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the trial court violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal

protection by imposing excessive fines, fees and assessments without first determining his ability to pay them. Alternatively, he summarily asserts that his counsel provided ineffective assistance by not objecting to the imposition of those sums of money. The People maintain Duran forfeited the constitutional challenge by not raising it below, and the fines and assessments are not unconstitutionally excessive and did not violate due process. Duran did not make a claim of error on Dueñas grounds in the trial court and it is his sole claim on appeal. Therefore, applying Penal Code section 1237.2,1 we conclude Duran’s appeal is not cognizable and dismiss the appeal. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND In San Diego case No. SCD280275, a jury convicted Duran of unlawful driving of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); count 1); buying, receiving, concealing, selling or withholding a stolen vehicle (§ 496d; count 2); evading an officer with reckless driving (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 3); possession of burglary tools (§ 466; count 4); obtaining personal identifying information with intent to defraud (§ 530.5, subd. (c)(1); count 5); and resisting an officer (§148, subd. (a)(1); count 6). The jury found true allegations that Duran had committed counts 1 through 3 while on bail release for a felony in San Diego case No. SCE386718 (§ 12022.1, subd. (b)). In San Diego case No. SCD282291, Duran pleaded guilty to possession for sale of narcotics (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a); count 1), transportation of narcotics (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 2) and resisting arrest (§ 148, subd. (a)(1); count 3). He admitted allegations that he possessed 28.5 grams or more of methamphetamine (§ 1203.073, subd. (b)(2)),