People v. Lopez CA5

Filed 1/23/23 P. v. Lopez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F084085 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. VCF399477) v.

JOSEPH ANTHONY LOPEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tulare County. Brett R. Alldredge, Judge. Stephanie L. Gunther, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Lewis A. Martinez and Louis M. Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P. J., Franson, J. and DeSantos, J.

Defendant Joseph Anthony Lopez pled no contest to a felony and two misdemeanor charges. The resulting sentence included certain monetary obligations totaling $3,904. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred by failing to recite the individual fines, fees, and assessments and their statutory bases at the sentencing hearing. Defendant further argues the abstract of judgment must specify the same. We direct the clerk of the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment that reflects the amount of each fine, fee, and penalty assessment imposed and its statutory basis. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 1 On June 24, 2020, the Tulare County District Attorney filed a complaint charging defendant with evading an officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a); count 1), resisting a peace officer (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1); count 2), 2 and driving with a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a); count 3). It was further alleged defendant had suffered one prior strike conviction within the meaning of the “Three Strikes” law (§§ 667, subds. (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d)), served four prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and committed count 1 while on state prison parole following imprisonment for committing a serious or violent felony (§ 3000). On October 20, 2021, defendant pled no contest to the charges and admitted the special allegations. On March 16, 2022, the trial court sentenced defendant in count 1 to 16 months in prison, doubled to 32 months pursuant to section 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1). Defense counsel and the trial court noted that the prison priors had been stricken. Defendant was ordered to pay a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $600 revocation restitution