People v. Rabbitt CA3

Filed 7/26/22 P. v. Rabbitt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C094637

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF20752, CRF2101131) v.

THOMAS CECIL RABBITT II,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Thomas Cecil Rabbitt II asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we affirm the judgment.

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS In case No. CRF-20-752 (752), during a traffic stop of defendant, a Yuba County police officer conducted an inventory search and found over 37 grams of individually

1

bagged methamphetamine and scales. Defendant pleaded guilty to possession for sale of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) in exchange for a maximum two-year (midterm) sentence. Defendant failed to appear at sentencing. As a result of his failure to appear, defendant agreed to the upper term of three years. In case No. CRF-21-131 (131), while sentencing was pending on case No. 752, defendant was again found in possession of methamphetamine. Defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine in exchange for eight months consecutive to the term in case No. 752. At sentencing, the court imposed the agreed to prison terms in each case and dismissed the remaining charges in case No. 752. In case No. 752, the court imposed $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4 - undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code) and imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8), $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), $705 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)(d)), and $50 lab fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7, subd. (a)). The court awarded defendant 124 days of custody credits. In case No. 131, the court noted defendant was not entitled to any custody credits in that case, and then stated: “Restitution fine of $300 to run concurrent [to] his other case pursuant to 1202.5. An additional $300 is suspended, suspension lifted upon revocation of parole.” The court also imposed the $705 drug program fee, $40 court security fee and $30 conviction assessment and stated all of those fines would be “concurrent to the other case.” The People did not object. The abstract of judgment reflects the fines and fees imposed in case No. 752, and does not indicate any fines and fees imposed in case No. 131 or that the fines are “concurrent.” The minute order does indicate the fines are concurrent. Defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause.