People v. Camarena CA3

Filed 12/30/21 P. v. Camarena CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yolo) ----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, C093560

v. (Super. Ct. No. CR-2016-531- 1) JESUS CAMARENA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jesus Camarena asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) We will modify the judgment to lift the stay on the probation revocation fine in light of the trial court’s revocation of probation, and, to the extent there is a discrepancy in the judgment regarding the base fine and penalty assessments, further modify the judgment to reflect the imposition of a $50 base fine with $155 in penalty assessments. Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.

1

I A criminal information charged defendant with second degree robbery (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 212.5 - count one)1 and assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4) - count two). The information further alleged that, as to both counts, defendant inflicted great bodily injury on a person 70 years of age or older (§ 12022.7, subd. (c).) Defendant pleaded not guilty, denied the enhancement allegations, and was released on his own recognizance with supervision. Defendant ultimately pleaded no contest on the count two charge of assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury and admitted the enhancement allegation associated with that count. In exchange, the People agreed to dismiss the remaining count and enhancement with a Harvey2 waiver. The trial court tentatively indicated it would find this was an unusual case (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 4.413) and would grant defendant probation. The stipulated factual basis for defendant’s plea was the preliminary hearing transcript. The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions, including that defendant serve 150 days on work project or home confinement. The trial court ordered defendant to pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), a $50 base fine with $155 in penalty assessments,3 a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and