People v. Hansen CA3

Filed 8/20/21 P. v. Hansen CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C091524

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFDV20190010104) v.

BRIAN BUCK HANSEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

After pleading no contest to inflicting a corporal injury on the mother of his child and admitting a great bodily injury enhancement, defendant Brian Buck Hansen was sentenced to eight years in state prison. Without objection, the court imposed the minimum restitution fine. Although the abstract of judgment and clerk’s minutes also reflect certain mandatory assessments, the trial court did not orally impose the assessments at sentencing.

1

On appeal, defendant challenges the fees and fines on several grounds. He contends the mandatory court operations and court facilities assessments must be stricken from the abstract of judgment and minutes because the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment, in which the court did not impose the mandatory assessments, controls over the contrary documents. Alternatively, to the extent the trial court imposed the mandatory assessments, defendant contends the court violated his constitutional right to due process by imposing the assessments and restitution fine without first determining his ability to pay, as required by People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). Defendant further contends that we should stay the restitution fine because the court was apparently unaware of its discretion not to impose the fine under Dueñas. We conclude the trial court erred by not orally imposing the mandatory assessments during the sentencing hearing and shall modify the judgment to impose the assessments. We further conclude the trial court did not err in imposing the challenged fines and assessments without first determining defendant had the ability to pay them. We therefore reject his Dueñas challenge and affirm the judgment as modified. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On June 17, 2019, defendant physically assaulted E.T., his ex-girlfriend and the mother of his child, three times at a motel in Stockton. Defendant initially attacked E.T. outside the motel; he grabbed her hair, tossed her to the ground, and started hitting her. During the attack, her head hit the concrete. A short time later, defendant attacked E.T. a second time, inside his hotel room, hitting her all over her body multiple times. Defendant fled the motel room, and later returned and attacked E.T. a third time. Defendant got her down on the floor and was hitting and kicking her and banging her head into the ground. According to E.T., defendant basically “beat the shit out of [her].” As a result of the attacks, E.T. suffered a broken wrist, which required surgery to correct. In August 2019, defendant was charged in San Joaquin County case No. 2019- 0010104 with corporal injury to a spouse, cohabitant, or parent of child (Pen. Code,