People v. Spengler CA2/2

California Court of Appeal Mar 15, 2024 No. B331068Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that there is no procedural vehicle for a defendant to seek a refund of fines and assessments paid for felony convictions that were subsequently redesignated as misdemeanors.

Issues

Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to entertain a motion for a refund of fines and assessments after the underlying felony convictions were redesignated as misdemeanors.
Whether a defendant is entitled to a refund of fines and assessments paid for a felony conviction that is later redesignated as a misdemeanor under Penal Code section 1170.18.

Disposition. Dismissed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, so dismiss it.”

“That is because no procedural vehicle exists by which defendant could seek a refund of his fees and assessments.”

“Any fines or assessments defendant already paid are a “done deal,” and nothing in section 1170.18 mandates their refund.”

Filed 3/14/24 P. v. Spengler CA2/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, B331068, consolidated with B331084 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County v. Super. Ct. Nos. KA075833 & KA099426) MICHAEL R. SPENGLER,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from orders of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Douglas Sortino and Rubiya Nur, Judges. Dismissed.

Murray Kamionski, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Noah P. Hill and Steven E. Mercer, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

****** Michael Spengler (defendant) purports to appeal two orders denying him a refund of the fines and assessments he already paid for two felony convictions he sustained back in 2006 and 2013. We lack jurisdiction to entertain this appeal, so dismiss it. The appeal also lacks merit. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND I. Defendant’s 2006 Drug Conviction A. Plea and sentence In August 2006, and as pertinent here, defendant pled no contest to a single count of possession of methamphetamine as a felony (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)).1 The trial court placed defendant on three years of probation pursuant to the then-existing “Proposition 36” drug rehabilitation program (Prop. 36, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 7, 2000)). When defendant violated that probation (and committed a new crime), the trial court sentenced him to two years in prison. The court also imposed a $200 restitution fine (pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subd. (b)),2 a $20 court security assessment (pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $160

People v. Spengler CA2/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief