People v. Rivera CA3

Filed 2/28/22 P. v. Rivera CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C094503

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CR20202623)

v.

JOHN RIVERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant John Rivera 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.) An unexplained $500 fine was orally imposed by the trial court and also appears in the probation order. As no statutory basis for the fine was articulated by the court or appears in the order, we will direct correction of that oversight or, in the alternative, deletion of that fine (and the corresponding $35 “processing fee”) as unauthorized. We direct a complete review of the probation order and any attachments to ensure the

1

adequate provision of independent and valid statutory bases for all fines, fees, and assessments ordered. We affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND Defendant was charged with driving under the influence of alcohol causing injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a); count 1); driving with a blood-alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more causing injury (id., § 23153, subd. (b); count 2); driving under the influence of alcohol within 10 years of three or more convictions for driving under the influence (id., §§ 23152, subd. (a), 23550, subd. (a); count 3); driving with a blood- alcohol content of 0.08 percent or more within 10 years of three or more convictions for driving under the influence (id., §§ 23152, subd. (b), 23550, subd. (a); count 4); and driving without a valid driver’s license (id., § 12500, subd. (a); count 5). The prosecution alleged defendant had three prior convictions for driving under the influence within 10 years as to counts 1 and 2, and further alleged defendant had a blood-alcohol content of .15 percent or more (id., § 23578) as to counts 1 through 4. It was also alleged that defendant had a prior strike conviction from 1999 for kidnapping in the course of carjacking (Pen. Code, §§ 209.5, subd. (a), 667, 1192.7). 1 Defendant pleaded no contest to count 4 and admitted the prior convictions and the strike in return for stayed execution of a three-year prison sentence and a term of probation. The factual basis for the plea was that defendant had been driving with a blood-alcohol content over 0.08 percent and had three prior convictions for driving under the influence within the past 10 years. The remaining counts and allegations were dismissed. Defendant argued Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) applied to his case and would limit the permissible term of probation. The trial court rejected