People v. Harris CA3

Filed 11/21/23 P. v. Harris CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C097464

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 21FE017252)

v.

LAMONT HARRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Lamont Harris asked this court to conduct an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal, pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. We will remand the case for the trial court to impose a mandatory fine and mandatory assessments and for any further proceedings regarding their imposition. We will otherwise affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.) Defendant pleaded no contest, pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, to assault with a firearm (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(2); statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated) and admitted personally inflicting great bodily injury (§ 12022.7, subd. (a)) and personally using a firearm (§ 12022.5, subds. (a), (d)) in committing the assault. The prosecution dismissed the remaining charges and allegations that were brought against defendant. Defendant waived his right to be referred to a probation officer for a report on his prior history and record and requested he be sentenced immediately. The trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in state prison, in accordance with the plea agreement. The trial court ordered defendant to pay restitution to the victim in an amount to be determined and imposed a $300 restitution fine. Without imposing any other fees, the court then stated: “I will stay all other fines and fees as you are indigent.” Though the trial court only imposed the $300 restitution fine, the abstract of judgment inaccurately indicates the court also imposed a $300 parole revocation restitution fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 conviction assessment. Defendant timely appealed from the judgment and requested a certificate of probable cause to challenge the validity of his plea. The trial court denied the request.