People v. Wildman CA2/6

California Court of Appeal May 9, 2023 No. B323437Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that Assembly Bills 177 and 1869 do not apply to the defendant's restitution fine because those statutes only eliminate specific administrative fees, not the restitution fine itself. Furthermore, the court affirmed the trial court's sentencing discretion and held that the defendant's Dueñas-based claims were forfeited and non-appealable.

Issues

Whether Assembly Bills 177 and 1869 authorize the stay of a restitution fine.
Whether a trial court has discretion to impose concurrent sentences for determinate and indeterminate terms.
Whether a defendant can raise an ability-to-pay challenge to a restitution fine in a postjudgment motion.
Whether the Wende procedure applies to appeals from postjudgment orders.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Assembly Bill 1869 did not abrogate the authority to impose and collect a restitution fine.”

“Because appellant’s sentence did not include a fee to cover the cost of collecting the restitution fine, the trial court did not err in concluding that appellant’s restitution fine was not subject to Assembly Bill 177.”

“Where, as here, the trial court imposes an indeterminate life sentence and a determinate sentence, it has discretion to decide whether the sentences shall be served concurrently or consecutively.”

Filed 5/9/23 P. v. Wildman CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. B323437 (Super. Ct. No. 2010035171) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

DANIEL CHARLES WILDMAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Daniel Charles Wildman appeals from a postjudgment order denying his “motion to stay restitution fines under newly enacted Assembly Bill[s] 177 and 1869.” (Bold and capitalization omitted.) In 2014 a jury convicted him of willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (Pen. Code, §§ 187, subd. (a), 189, subd. (a)),1 and possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021, subd. (a)(1), now § 29800, subd. (a)(1)). The jury found true a firearm enhancement within the meaning of section 12022.53,

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

subdivision (d). Appellant was sentenced to prison for 50 years to life. He was ordered to pay a $10,000 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b). We affirmed the judgment in an unpublished opinion: People v. Wildman (June 18, 2015, B254560). We appointed counsel to represent appellant in the present appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief stating that he had “not found any arguable issues to raise on appeal.” Counsel “request[ed] that [we] follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496 [(Serrano)].” (Bold and capitalization omitted.) We sent a letter to appellant advising him that he could submit a supplemental brief stating grounds for his appeal. Appellant filed a supplemental brief. Trial Court’s Ruling The trial court ruled: “The motion is denied. [Appellant] has not established that he was ordered to pay any of fees subject to A.B. Nos. 177 or 1869. Accordingly, the statutory changes have no application here.” Assembly Bill 1869 “On September 18, 2020, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1869. Effective July 1, 2021, Assembly Bill 1869 ‘eliminate[d] the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system and . . . eliminate[d] all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of [identified] administrative fees.’ (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 2.) [¶] Specifically, Assembly Bill 1869 abrogated the authority to impose and collect 23 different administrative fees . . . .” (People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 625.)

People v. Wildman CA2/6

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

DANIEL CHARLES WILDMAN,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

YEGAN, J.

GILBERT, P. J. CODY, J.

AI Brief