People v. Brooks CA3

Filed 5/2/22 P. v. Brooks CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C094450

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. CRF2100970)

v.

WILLIAM LEE BROOKS, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, defendant William Lee Brooks, Jr. appeals the imposition of assessments and fines without an ability to pay hearing. Recognizing his trial counsel did not object to these assessments and fines, defendant further contends he received ineffective assistance of counsel. The principles of due process do not require a determination of a defendant’s present ability to pay before the imposition of the fines and assessments at issue in

1

Dueñas and in this proceeding. Thus, we reject his argument and, with that, we necessarily reject his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The facts underlying defendant’s convictions are irrelevant to our decision on appeal and are therefore not recounted in detail. Suffice it to say defendant burglarized his ex-girlfriend’s motel room and assaulted police officers who attempted to apprehend him. He pleaded no contest to one count of first degree burglary (Penal Code, § 459 – statutory section citations that follow are to the Penal Code) and three counts of felony resisting a peace officer (§ 69). He also admitted he had sustained a prior strike conviction (§ 667, subd. (d)). At the sentencing hearing, defendant’s trial counsel requested “a reduced restitution fine given [defendant’s] indigent status.” The trial court then sentenced defendant to a total term of 12 years in state prison. It also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed and suspended a $300 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), imposed a $40 additional burglary fine (§ 1202.5), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 criminal convictions assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant’s trial counsel did not object to the fees and fines imposed. Defendant timely appealed. Defendant later made a motion for a stay of the fines and assessments pursuant to section 1237.2 pending an ability to pay hearing. The trial court denied the request on the ground that defendant had waived the objection.