People v. Washington CA1/5

Filed 6/15/23 P. v. Washington CA1/5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur- poses of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A166995 v. ISAIAH N. WASHINGTON, (Alameda County Super. Ct. No. Defendant and Appellant. H53084A)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Isaiah N. Washington appeals from an order denying his post-judgment motion to vacate a restitution fine and certain assessments. His appointed counsel filed a brief raising no issues, but seeking our discretionary independent review of the record, pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, 230, 232. We conclude the challenged order is not appealable and dismiss Washington’s appeal.

In 2015, a jury convicted Washington of two counts of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)),2 one count of attempted murder (§§ 187, subd. (a), 664, subd. (a)), and one

We resolve this appeal by a memorandum opinion 1

pursuant to California Standards of Judicial Administration, standard 8.1.

2 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1

count of possession of a firearm by a felon (former § 12021.1). For each count of murder, the jury found true the special circumstance that Washington committed the murder while engaged in the commission of robbery within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(17)(A). The jury also found true the special circumstance allegation that Washington committed multiple murders within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3).

The trial court sentenced Washington to prison for two terms of life without the possibility of parole. The trial court also imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $120 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $160 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8). On direct appeal, Washington did not challenge the imposed assessments or restitution fine and this Division affirmed the judgment against him. (People v. Washington (Nov. 9, 2018, A146433) [nonpub. opn.].)3