P. v. Brown CA5

Filed 5/14/13 P. v. Brown 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F064102 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. MCR041837) v.

JONATHAN DAVID BROWN, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Joseph A. Soldani, Judge. Carol Foster, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Peña, J.

The only issue in this case is whether the trial court committed reversible error in imposing, without objection by defendant, a fine under Penal Code section 368, subdivision (b)(1). (All further section references are to this code.) We conclude defendant forfeited this issue by failing to object in the lower court. As a result, we affirm the judgment. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY On August 10, 2011, defendant and appellant Jonathan David Brown knocked his 82-year-old grandmother to the floor, breaking her hip. A jury found defendant guilty of one count of violation of section 368, subdivision (b)(1), elder abuse likely to cause great bodily harm. In a separate trial to the court sitting without a jury, the court found true four prior prison term enhancement allegations. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) After reviewing the presentence report, the court sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years in prison, together with an additional four years on the prior prison term allegations. In addition, the court imposed various fines and penalties including, as relevant to this appeal, a base fine of $200 pursuant to section 368, subdivision (b)(1), with associated penalties and assessments under the Penal, Government, and Health and Safety Codes of $630. The section 368, subdivision (b)(1), fine was specified in the probation officer‟s report. Defendant did not object to the fine at the sentencing hearing. DISCUSSION Defendant‟s sole contention on appeal is that a fine under section 368, subdivision (b)(1), is not authorized when a defendant is sentenced to state prison.1 Defendant forfeited this issue by failing to raise the issue in the trial court. (People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 234.) “As a general rule, only „claims properly raised and