People v. Birdsell CA2/6

California Court of Appeal Feb 23, 2023 No. B320387Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's imposition of a $10,000 restitution fine did not violate the defendant's plea agreement, as the agreement left the amount to the court's discretion and silence on the matter did not imply a minimum fine.

Issues

Whether the trial court violated the plea agreement by imposing a $10,000 restitution fine.
Whether the trial court's failure to advise the defendant of the statutory restitution fine range constitutes a violation of the plea agreement.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“[M]ere silence by the parties and trial court concerning a statutorily mandated punishment does not make exclusion of the punishment a negotiated term of a plea agreement”

Filed 2/23/23 P. v. Birdsell CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B320387 (Super. Ct. No. 21CR07906) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Santa Barbara County)

DANIEL M. BIRDSELL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appellant Daniel M. Birdsell pleaded guilty to one count of voluntary manslaughter (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a)1) and admitted that he personally and intentionally discharged a firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)). The prosecutor dismissed a murder charge in exchange for his plea. Birdsell agreed to an aggregate sentence of 15 years in state prison. The trial court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine at sentencing. Birdsell maintains that the fine violates the plea agreement. We affirm the judgment.

All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless 1

otherwise stated.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Birdsell shot his stepbrother, Jordan Savard, during an argument outside the family home in Lompoc. Savard died on the way to the hospital. Police arrested Birdsell the next day as he debarked a train in Oceanside. The People charged him with one count of murder with a firearm enhancement (§§ 187, subd. (a), 12022.5, subd. (a).) Birdsell later agreed to plead guilty to voluntary manslaughter (§ 192, subd. (a)). He also agreed to admit the firearm allegation and accept an aggregate prison term of 15 years. Section 2.f. of the parties’ form plea agreement is titled “Restitution, Statutory Fees, and Assessments.” It lists nine categories of restitution and other post-conviction assessments, each preceded by a space into which parties can place a check mark and insert a dollar amount.2 The parties checked only the

People v. Birdsell CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DANIEL M. BIRDSELL,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

BALTODANO, J.

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.

AI Brief