People v. Hudson CA5

Filed 1/8/24 P. v. Hudson CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F085108 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CMS-2144) v.

CLAUDE EUGENE HUDSON, JR., OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kings County. Michael J. Reinhart, Judge. Joseph M. Ahart, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, and Hannah Janigian Chavez, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Detjen, Acting P. J., Peña, J. and Meehan, J.

Defendant Claude Eugene Hudson, Jr., contends on appeal that the judgment must be reversed and remanded because the trial court erred by (1) denying defendant’s demand for a jury trial under the United States Constitution and the California Constitution; and (2) imposing a $300 probation revocation restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.44.1 The People agree that the judgment must be reversed and remanded because defendant did not validly waive his right to a jury trial under the United States and California Constitutions. However, the People contend we need not reach the issue of whether the court properly imposed a fine pursuant to section 1202.44 because the case must be reversed and remanded. We agree with the People. We reverse the judgment and remand the matter for defendant to exercise his right to a jury trial. PROCEDURAL SUMMARY On October 12, 2021, the Kings County District Attorney filed a first amended consolidated information charging defendant with resisting an executive officer (§ 69; count 1); two counts of trespass and refusing to leave private property (§ 602, subd. (o); counts 2 & 3); and aggravated trespass (§ 602.5, subd. (b); count 4). Defendant pleaded not guilty to all counts. On September 20, 2022, the trial court found defendant guilty on count 1 and the remaining counts were dismissed. On the same day, the trial court sentenced defendant to a total of two years in county jail. Defendant was awarded 400 days actual credit and 400 days conduct credit. The court imposed various fines and fees pursuant to sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), 1202.45, 1465.8, and Government Code section 70373. The fines and fees were deemed paid since defendant’s time credits exceeded his sentence.