People v. Lynex CA2/1

Filed 3/30/22 P. v. Lynex CA2/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

THE PEOPLE, B314749

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. PA034126) v.

TOMMIE LAWSON LYNEX,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Daniel B. Feldstern, Judge. Affirmed. ____________________________

Richard B. Lennon and Jill Ishida, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

____________________________

A jury convicted defendant and appellant Tommie Lawson Lynex of first degree murder (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) in 2000. The court sentenced him to a base term of 25 years to life, plus an additional 25 years to life for personally using a firearm to cause great bodily injury or death. (§ 12022.53, subd. (d).) The trial court also imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a parole revocation fine of $10,000 stayed pending the completion of parole (§ 1202.45), and $5,000 in restitution to the family of the victim (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)). We affirmed the conviction on appeal. (People v. Lynex (July 17, 2001, B145639) [nonpub. opn.).)2 Two decades after his conviction, on July 16, 2021, Lynex filed a petition to modify his restitution and parole revocation fines. He alleged that the fines were unauthorized, and that they constituted cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment. He also alleged that he had not had an opportunity to dispute the amount of the fine, in violation of his right to due process. Finally, he claimed that his attorney rendered ineffective assistance of counsel by failing to object to the fines. The trial court denied the petition on the grounds that the fines were not excessive, and that Lynex had not shown an inability to pay. The court also concluded that Lynex forfeited the issue