People v. Miles CA2/4

Filed 8/20/21 P. v. Miles CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B300619 (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. BA455754)

v.

TYRONE LEE MILES,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Drew E. Edwards, Judge. Affirmed. Laurie Wilmore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Johnsen, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Blythe J. Leszkay, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

This is an appeal from a resentencing hearing following remand in defendant and appellant Tyrone Lee Miles’s direct appeal in People v. Miles (Jan. 8, 2019, B284253) [nonpub. opn.] (Miles I).1 Consistent with our opinion in Miles I, at the resentencing hearing the trial court struck appellant’s conviction on count 2 for assault by means of force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)),2 and re- imposed an 11-year sentence on count 1 for assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)). The court also re-imposed a total of $370 in fines and assessments on count 1, a ruling to which defense counsel did not object. In this appeal, appellant contends the trial court violated his due process rights by ordering him to pay the fines and assessments without first determining his ability to pay. He alternatively contends his trial counsel was unconstitutionally ineffective in failing to object on the ground of inability to pay. The People contend, and we agree, that appellant has forfeited his claim regarding his ability to pay the fines and assessments. We also find no merit to appellant’s ineffective assistance claim. We affirm.