People v. Rodas CA3

Filed 6/13/23 P. v. Rodas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C096504

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 17FE021142)

v.

ALVARO RODAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Alvaro Rodas’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing certain fines and fees without complying with People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). Defendant’s argument fails for three reasons. First, defendant has forfeited this issue by failing to raise Dueñas below. Second, the trial court implicitly determined defendant’s ability to pay when it imposed a $10,000 restitution fine. Finally, defendant’s Dueñas argument fails because we disagree with that decision. Accordingly, we will affirm.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS The People’s amended information charged defendant with 36 counts of child sex abuse, possession of child pornography, and other crimes. On June 28, 2021, defendant resolved this matter by entering conditional pleas of no contest to 11 specified counts, admitting the multiple victim allegations, and waiving his appellate rights; in exchange, defendant would receive a stipulated aggregate term of 130 years to life, and the remaining counts would be dismissed. The stipulated factual basis for defendant’s pleas was both the preliminary hearing transcript, as well as the facts as set forth by the People at the plea hearing, which are not recounted here given the limited scope of defendant’s appellate arguments. On June 17, 2022, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea. The court then sentenced him in accordance with the plea agreement to an aggregate term of 130 years to life, and the remaining counts were dismissed. As to the fines and fees, defendant acknowledged the mandatory nature of the restitution fine, but requested reduction to the statutory minimum. Defendant also requested minimization or waiver of the remaining fines and fees “to the greatest extent possible,” arguing he would not have a source of funds because of his incarceration. He did not raise Dueñas or suggest that imposition of the mandatory fines and fees would violate the constitution. Thereafter, the trial court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code § 1202.4) (undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code), a matching, stayed $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $440 court operations assessment fee ($40 times 11) (§ 1465.8), and a $330 court facility fee ($30 times 11) (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court waived “[a]ny and all other fines and fees.” Defendant did not object to the fines and fees portion of the court’s decision, but indicated he would appeal the denial of his motion to withdraw his plea.