People v. Walling CA3

Filed 4/22/22 P. v. Walling CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Yuba) ----

THE PEOPLE, C094497

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF2100829)

v.

JAMES CHARLES WALLING, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant James Charles Walling, Sr., 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.) We affirm the judgment as modified to vacate a fee.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Over the course of several months, defendant repeatedly contacted the victim, his ex-girlfriend, in violation of a domestic violence restraining order. Among other things, he visited her home, sent her threatening texts and e-mails, and left notes to her on street signs in the area. The prosecution charged defendant with a single count of stalking while subject to a restraining order. (Pen. Code, § 646.9, subd. (b).)1 On June 4, 2021, defendant pleaded no contest to the charge in exchange for a maximum sentence of three years in custody. At the sentencing hearing, defense counsel asked for a term of probation, which the trial court denied based on defendant’s past difficulties following court orders. The court imposed the low term sentence of two years in custody and a no-contact order covering the victim. (§ 646.9, subd. (k).) The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4); a $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45); a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8); and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373).2 The court imposed a 10 percent collection fee on the restitution fine. Defendant did not raise any objections based on an inability to pay the fines and fees. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal without a certificate of probable cause. The case was fully briefed on March 15, 2022, and assigned to this panel on March 25, 2022. DISCUSSION We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and requesting that this court review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende, supra,