People v. Poliquin CA3

Filed 5/11/23 P. v. Poliquin CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C097042

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CR-002507)

v.

ROBERT PAUL POLIQUIN, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Robert Paul Poliquin, Sr., guilty of two counts of burglary and one count of vandalism. Following this court’s remand to the trial court for resentencing, defendant urged the trial court to impose the low term under Penal Code section 1170, subdivision (b)(6)1 because his childhood trauma was a contributing factor in committing the burglary. He further urged dismissal of a prior strike under section 1385, subdivision (c) and reconsideration of certain assessments the trial court did not orally pronounce at his original sentence. The trial court reimposed the same sentence

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

and restitution fines. Defendant made no specific objections to the resentencing decision in the trial court. We affirm the judgment but order the abstract of judgment corrected to strike the assessments because the trial court never imposed them. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND A jury found defendant guilty of burglarizing two storage units—the Olive Grove storage unit and the Fig Lane storage unit—and of vandalizing the door to the Fig Lane unit. (People v. Poliquin (Mar. 21, 2022, C093906) [nonpub. opn.] (Poliquin).) Defendant admitted a previous conviction under the Three Strikes law (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12). At sentencing, the trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss his prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 as to one of the burglary convictions, but it denied the motion with respect to the other burglary conviction, citing defendant’s criminal history and the injuries that could have been caused by the crime. The court sentenced defendant to prison for six years eight months (three years doubled to six pursuant to the Three Strikes law for one burglary conviction, plus a consecutive eight months for the other burglary conviction, and a concurrent 30 days for the vandalism). The trial court stated it would “reserve jurisdiction over restitution, but [would] also order restitution fines as outlined in the probation report.” In addition to those restitution fines, the abstract of judgment reflects that defendant pay the following assessments: a $78 theft fine pursuant to section 1202.5, an $80 court security fee pursuant to section 1465.8, and a $60 criminal conviction fee pursuant to Government Code section 70373. On his first appeal, we agreed with defendant that section 654 prohibited him from being sentenced for both burglary of the Fig Lane storage unit and vandalism of the door to that unit. (Poliquin, supra, C093906.) We remanded for the trial court to resentence defendant “in full exercise of its independent discretion, including to exercise the discretion conferred by section 654.” (Id. at [p. 17], as mod. Apr. 1, 2022.) We declined to address defendant’s concerns regarding the assessments because they would be