People v. Hernandez CA1/5

Filed 6/30/22 P. v. Hernandez CA1/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A162953 v. RICHI HERNANDEZ, (Napa County Super. Ct. No. 20CR002461) Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Richi Hernandez (Appellant) asserts three claims on appeal related to the fees and conditions of probation imposed following his no contest plea to a charge of leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)). We remand for reconsideration of certain fees and two probation conditions, and otherwise affirm. BACKGROUND In brief, according to the probation report, in September 2020 Appellant turned left at a red light, caused a crash involving two other cars, and fled the scene. The occupants of the other cars were injured. Hours later, Appellant contacted the police and claimed he entered the intersection to turn when the light turned green. He left the scene because his license had been revoked and he thought he would go to jail.

1

In April 2021, pursuant to a plea agreement, Appellant pleaded no contest to leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20001, subd. (a)) and the remaining charges—driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)) and failure to stop at a red light (Veh. Code, § 21453, subd. (a))—were dismissed with a Harvey waiver.1 The plea agreement specified that Appellant would be placed on two years’ formal probation and “assess[ed] for treatment/treatment if appropriate.” In June 2021, the trial court placed Appellant on two years’ probation with terms and conditions recommended by the probation department. Three conditions required Appellant to pay restitution to the victims “plus interest at 10% per year from the date of sentencing, in a manner to be determined by the collection agency and the Court.” Among other things, Appellant was also directed to pay a $30 “Accounts Receivable Fee.” The present appeal followed. DISCUSSION I. Remand for Reconsideration of Certain Fees In September 2021, approximately three months after Appellant’s sentencing hearing, the Governor signed Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 177), which, among other things, added a new subdivision (b) to section 1465.9 of the Penal Code,2 eliminating certain “court-imposed costs” in criminal cases. (Stats.2021, ch. 257, § 35.) The balance of any such costs are deemed “unenforceable and uncollectible” as of January 1, 2022. (§ 1465.9, subd. (b).) Appellant argues the interest on restitution payments and the $30 accounts receivable fee imposed by the trial court are now