People v. Rivera CA3

Filed 12/8/23 P. v. Rivera CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C097733

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 20CF06527, 22CF05627 ) v.

RICHIE JOE RIVERA,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Richie Joe Rivera contends that several fees imposed by the trial court as part of his sentence in case No. 20CF06527 (the elder abuse case)1 must be vacated due to recently enacted legislation. The People agree. We modify the judgment to vacate

1 Although defendant filed a notice of appeal in two different cases, the only issue raised in defendant’s brief concerns the elder abuse case. As such, this opinion only addresses the judgment from that case.

1

those fees, direct preparation of an amended abstract of judgment as necessary, and otherwise affirm the judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND As relevant here, on April 1, 2021, defendant pled no contest in the elder abuse case to elder or dependent adult abuse, battery, and disobeying a domestic relations court order. On April 29, 2021, the trial court imposed the upper term of four years imprisonment for the elder abuse conviction and concurrent terms of six months for the battery and one year for disobeying a court order. The court suspended execution of that sentence and granted defendant three years’ formal probation. The court also ordered defendant to pay a monthly $164 probation supervision fee (Pen. Code,2 former § 1203.1b) and a $25 criminal justice administration fee (Gov. Code, former § 29550.2, subd. (a)). The trial court terminated defendant’s probation as unsuccessful on December 29, 2022, and lifted the stay of execution of the previously imposed sentence. The court then resentenced defendant to the middle term of three years for the elder abuse conviction pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (b)(6). At the sentencing hearing, the court pronounced that “[i]n [the elder abuse case], previously imposed fines, fees, and any restitution are reimposed.” Defendant timely appealed the judgment in the elder abuse case as well as the judgment in a different matter, case No. 22CF05627. DISCUSSION Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the criminal justice administration fee and probation supervision fee imposed in the elder abuse case should be vacated as they are no longer authorized. The People agree, as do we.