People v. Yahnke CA3

Filed 2/24/23 P. v. Yahnke CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096618

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22CF01738)

v.

COREY ALLEN YAHNKE, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Corey Allen Yahnke, Sr., pled no contest to four sexual offenses involving a child under the age of 10 and the trial court sentenced him to four consecutive terms totaling 80 years, plus corresponding fines and fees. On appeal, defendant contends counsel rendered ineffective assistance because he did not request concurrent prison terms for each count. Citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, defendant also challenges the trial court’s imposition of fines and fees without first conducting an ability to pay hearing. Anticipating the People’s argument for forfeiture,

1

defendant alternatively argues his counsel provided ineffective assistance when he failed to object to the fines and fees. We will affirm. BACKGROUND1 Over the course of nearly three years, defendant digitally penetrated, orally copulated, and sexually assaulted a child. The victim reported that during this same timeframe, defendant initiated sexual contact in several rooms at two apartments, and in multiple areas of a single family home. Defendant pled no contest to two counts of sexual intercourse or sodomy with a child 10 years or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (a))2 and two counts of oral copulation with a child 10 years or younger (§ 288.7, subd. (b)). The probation department noted defendant did not have any income, real property, or assets. Defendant reported to the probation department that he did not have any outstanding debts. The probation department also noted defendant had a sixth grade education and an insignificant criminal history; the department’s report included defendant’s letter to probation. At defendant’s 2022 sentencing hearing, the trial court advised the parties it intended to follow the recommendation from the probation department and sentence defendant to an indeterminate term of 80 years to life. Defendant argued one mitigating factor given his admission of guilt and acceptance of responsibility. The trial court cited California Rules of Court, rule 4.425 regarding the court’s discretion to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences and concluded that the crimes were independent of each other and committed at different times and locations, and thus did not constitute a single period of abhorrent behavior. Based on this analysis, the trial