People v. Rapanut CA5

Filed 8/23/22 P. v. Rapanut 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083336 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR060276) v.

JOHN JOE RAPANUT, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Madera County. Mitchell C. Rigby, Judge. Rex A. Williams, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Office of the State Attorney General, Sacramento, California, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Meehan, J. and Snauffer, J.

STATEMENT OF APPEALABILITY This is an appeal from an order denying a post-judgment motion to vacate or reduce a restitution fine. On January 7, 2022, this court determined the order is appealable, pursuant to Government Code section 6111, subdivision (a). STATEMENT OF THE CASE On October 16, 2018, pursuant to a negotiated plea, Rapanut pleaded no contest to attempted possession of a drug or alcohol in prison (Pen. Code, 1 §§ 664, 4573.8), and admitted a prior strike allegation (§§ 667, 1170.12), in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 16 months in prison. On November 27, 2018, after considering the probation officer’s report, the court sentenced Rapanut to 16 months in state prison. The court imposed various fines, fees, and assessments, including a $300 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a $750 presentence report fee pursuant to section 1203.1b. On August 2, 2021, Rapanut filed a motion to dismiss his restitution fine, relying on Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (AB 1869). On August 13, 2021, the court determined AB 1869 does not require reduction or deletion of the minimum $300 restitution fine and denied Rapanut’s motion. On September 21, 2021, Rapanut filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying his motion. On May 11, 2022, the trial court granted Rapanut’s motion to vacate the $750 presentence report fee. STATEMENT OF FACTS The facts of the offense are not set forth in the record, other than in the Madera County Probation Officer’s report. The report states that on September 12, 2017, while Rapanut was incarcerated at Valley State Prison, a correctional officer conducted a search