People v. Hood CA2/2

Filed 4/14/22 P. v. Hood CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 TWO

THE PEOPLE, B316651

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. TA071346) v.

CEDRIC DESMOND HOOD,

Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT:

In 2003, a jury convicted Cedric Desmond Hood (defendant) of one count of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)).1 The jury

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

also found true the allegation that defendant personally and intentionally discharged a firearm which proximately caused great bodily injury and death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison for 50 years to life (25 years for the murder plus 25 years for the firearm enhancement). As part of the sentencing, the court imposed a $9,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), ordered defendant to pay direct restitution to the victim’s family in the amount of $500 (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), and imposed but stayed a $9,000 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45). On appeal, a prior panel of this division of the Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. (People v. Hood (Oct. 19, 2004, B172478) [nonpub. opn.].) In October 2021, defendant filed a petition to dismiss the restitution and parole revocation fines pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1869), which is a bill that added, amended or repealed various statutes related to fees imposed by the courts on convicted defendants. The trial court summarily denied defendant’s motion. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. We appointed appellate counsel for defendant. Citing People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 (Serrano), counsel filed an opening brief setting out the procedural history of this case, and a declaration indicating that counsel had “reviewed the entire record,” had found no “arguable issues to raise on appeal” and had informed defendant “of his right to file a supplemental brief.” Where appointed counsel finds no arguable issues in an appeal seeking postjudgment relief, the appellate court is not required to conduct an independent review for arguable issues. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040 (Cole),