People v. Farley CA5

Filed 3/9/22 P. v. Farley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F080716 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 16CR-00563) v.

RONALD FARLEY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Merced County. Jeanne Schechter, Judge. Conness A. Thompson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Carlos A. Martinez and Catherine Tennant Nieto, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo- Appellant Ronald Farley appeals from the court’s postjudgment order denying his petition for presentence custody credits. The sole issue raised by appellant concerns the judgment of sentence imposed for a violation of probation. He contends only that the

trial court erred by imposing a $900 restitution fine (Pen. Code,1 § 1202.4) at the violation sentencing when it had previously imposed a $300 restitution fine at the time of sentencing for the underlying offense. Finding that we do not have jurisdiction because appellant failed to timely appeal the judgment and, further, that this appeal is not cognizable under section 1237.2, we dismiss the appeal. FACTS On September 19, 2016, appellant pled no contest to being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced him to the upper term of three years in prison, suspended execution of the sentence, and placed appellant on three years’ formal probation. The court ordered appellant to pay a restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) in the amount of $300 and a probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44) in the same amount; the latter was stayed pending successful completion of probation. On July 25, 2019, appellant admitted a violation of probation. On August 7, 2019, the court executed appellant’s three-year suspended sentence. The court ordered a restitution fine in the amount of $900, and a matching parole revocation fine stayed pending successful completion of parole. On December 11, 2019, appellant, in pro per, filed a form document captioned “PETITION FOR ORDER GRANTING PRE-SENTENCE CUSTODY AND CONDUCT CREDITS PURSUANT TO PENAL CODE § 2900.5\\4019.” Appellant contended he was entitled to an additional 255 days of custody credit. On January 21, 2020, the court filed a document captioned “RULING ON MOTION TO AMEND ABSTRACT OF JUDGMENT,” denying appellant’s petition indicating the credit appellant contended should be applied to his case was applied to a case for which he was serving a sentence for a different county.