People v. Smith CA3

Filed 12/6/23 P. v. Smith CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (El Dorado) ----

THE PEOPLE, C098072

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. P20CRF0420)

v.

JASON ANDREW SMITH,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Jason Andrew Smith asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Our review of the record has disclosed clerical errors regarding certain fines and fees imposed by the trial court, which we will correct. Finding no other arguable errors that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On March 12, 2020, defendant resolved multiple cases by pleading no contest to possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1)).1 In exchange, defendant received five years’ felony probation with various conditions, including that he serve 180 days in county jail. The trial court also imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 stayed probation revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), a $30 conviction assessment fee (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $40 court operations assessment fee (§ 1465.8). The factual basis for his plea was recited by the district attorney on the record. The remaining cases were dismissed in the interest of justice on the People’s motion. Thereafter, on January 7, 2021, the district attorney filed a petition for revocation of defendant’s probation alleging three violations, and the trial court issued an order summarily revoking defendant’s probation and issuing a warrant for his arrest. Defendant denied these allegations at his arraignment on April 9, 2021, and was released pending trial on the violations, subject to various terms and conditions. On December 16, 2021, the district attorney filed an amended petition for revocation of probation alleging two more violations of probation, for a total of five probation violations. The same day, the trial court issued an order summarily revoking probation and issuing a warrant for defendant’s arrest. On August 8, 2022, the probation department filed a petition seeking the termination of defendant’s probation given the passage of Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), and the matter was set for a hearing. On December 9, 2022, defendant denied the probation violation allegations, and the matter was continued for trial setting and trial on the contested violations.