P. v. Evans CA2/4

Filed 5/24/13 P. v. Evans CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B240974

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA090489) v.

MANDELL JACQUES EVANS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Charles D. Sheldon, Judge. Affirmed. Julia J. Spikes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Michael C. Keller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________________

INTRODUCTION Mandell Jacques Evans appeals from a judgment following a jury trial. He contends the trial court erred in imposing a “minimum” restitution fine in the 1 amount of $240 under Penal Code section 1202.4, as the minimum amount was $200 when he committed his crimes. Because appellant did not object to the amount of the restitution fine in the trial court, we conclude appellant has forfeited this argument. Accordingly, we affirm.

2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE An information charged appellant with committing the crime of indecent exposure with a prior (§ 314), on September 13, 2010 and April 7, 2011. It also alleged that appellant suffered one “strike” within the meaning of sections 1170.12, subdivisions (a) through (d), and 667, subdivisions (b) through (i). On March 20, 2012, a jury found appellant guilty as charged. In a probation report prepared for the court, the probation officer recommended that probation be denied, that appellant serve the maximum amount of time in county jail, and that a restitution fine in the amount of $400 be imposed pursuant to section 1202.4. After sentencing appellant to state prison for the middle term on count one and one-third the middle term on count two, the court stated, “I‟m going to give you the minimum fines so that when eventually you get out, sir, you can try, hopefully, to start anew here.” The court then pronounced the imposition of various fines and fees, including a restitution fine of $240 pursuant