People v. Lopez CA5

Filed 6/9/22 P. v. Lopez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083270 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 1064916) v.

VICTOR LOPEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County. Ricardo Cordova, Judge. David Y. Stanley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Poochigian, J. and Snauffer, J.

Defendant Victor Lopez was convicted of first degree murder in 2007. He was sentenced to 25 years to life in prison and ordered to pay $5,187.44 in direct victim restitution and a $10,000 restitution fine. In 2021, approximately 14 years after his conviction, he filed a motion, in propria persona, “to strike or modify court ordered restitution, fees, or fines.” (Capitalization omitted.) The trial court understood the motion to challenge imposition of defendant’s direct victim restitution order and denied defendant’s motion for multiple reasons, including that it lacked the jurisdiction to hear the motion. Defendant contends the trial court erred in failing to construe his motion as a challenge to the restitution fine (rather than merely direct victim restitution) and failing to reach the merits of that portion of his motion. The People disagree, arguing that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to hear defendant’s motion, even insofar as it challenged restitution fines. We dismiss defendant’s appeal. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On February 8, 2007, the Stanislaus County District Attorney filed an amended information charging defendant with the premeditated murder of Eric Adorno (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a); count 1). The amended information further alleged that defendant committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd. (b)(1)) and personally discharged a firearm causing death (§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). On June 7, 2007, the jury found defendant guilty on count 1 and found true that defendant committed the offense for the benefit of a criminal street gang. The jury found that defendant did not personally discharge a firearm causing death. On July 10, 2007, the trial court sentenced defendant to 25 years to life in prison, and imposed $5,187.44 in direct victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)) and a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)).