People v. Betancourt CA3

Filed 1/31/23 P. v. Betancourt CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096035

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21CR-003191)

v.

MARK RYAN BETANCOURT,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Mark Ryan Betancourt has 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.) We will remand for the trial court to specify: (1) the amount of the fine it imposed pursuant to Vehicle Code section 23554; and (2) the amount and statutory basis of each applicable penalty assessment. We will otherwise affirm the judgment.

1

BACKGROUND We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.) Defendant crossed into oncoming traffic while driving and crashed into the side of another vehicle, injuring the other driver and the passenger. When a police officer arrived, defendant admitted drinking alcohol and displayed signs of intoxication, and the officer found an empty bottle of vodka and three empty cans of hard seltzer beverages in the vehicle. Defendant pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of alcohol causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a))1 and admitted two prior convictions for driving under the influence of alcohol. (§ 23152, subds. (a) & (b).) At sentencing, the trial court agreed with the probation report that defendant did not appear to have learned from his prior grants of probation for driving under the influence. Accordingly, the trial court denied probation and sentenced defendant to the middle term of two years in state prison, the maximum sentence permitted by the plea agreement. (See § 23554; Pen. Code, §§ 17, subd. (a), 18, subd. (a).) The trial court revoked defendant’s driver’s license for 10 years, pursuant to section 23597. The court also imposed a four-year requirement to install a functioning, certified ignition interlock device (IID) on any vehicle that defendant operates and a four- year prohibition from operating a motor vehicle unless that vehicle is equipped with a functioning, certified IID, pursuant to section 23575.3, subdivision (h)(2)(D). The court later corrected its order to limit the IID requirement to three years because subdivision (h)(2)(C) of section 23575.3 should have applied, rather than subdivision (h)(2)(D). The trial court did not orally impose fees, restitution, fines, and penalty assessments, but rather referred the parties to the recommendations in the probation