People v. Imber CA3

Filed 1/10/22 P. v. Imber CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093659

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE018232)

v.

JOSHUA ALAN IMBER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Joshua Alan Imber filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) After examining the record, we conclude that the main jail booking and classification fees imposed at sentencing are no longer enforceable in light of recent legislative amendments. We shall vacate the main jail booking and classification fees, order certain corrections to clerical errors in the abstract of judgment, and otherwise affirm the judgment as modified.

1

I. BACKGROUND In 2018, defendant was charged with the murder of Charles Dynes (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)—count one),1 and with being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)—count two). Several firearm enhancements for personally and intentionally using and discharging a firearm proximately causing great bodily injury and death were attached to count one (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 12022.53, subds. (b), (c) &(d)), and it was further alleged that defendant had a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), which was also a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). Prior to trial, defendant pled guilty to count two and the remaining charges were tried to a jury. The following evidence was adduced at trial. On the evening of September 27, 2017, Mary Slocum was having dinner at a restaurant with her son when she received a text message from defendant apologizing and stating that it was not her fault for what was about to happen. Slocum and defendant had previously had a romantic relationship, but they were broken up at the time of defendant’s text message and Slocum was dating and living with Charles Dynes. Slocum believed defendant’s text message meant he might commit suicide. Slocum tried to contact defendant several times without success. He eventually answered her call, telling her that he felt he had nothing to live for and that he wanted to go over and shoot and kill “ ‘him,’ ” which Slocum understood to mean Dynes. She told defendant not to because Dynes was her oldest friend. After speaking for several minutes, Slocum agreed to call defendant back in about an hour. A short time later, Slocum’s son received a telephone call from a neighbor who lived nearby asking if they were okay because the friend had heard gunshots coming from the direction of Slocum’s house. Slocum called Dynes to check on him, but received no