People v. Stevens CA3

Filed 4/2/24 P. v. Stevens CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C098133

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 22FE006487)

v.

TERRY RAY STEVENS, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Terry Ray Stevens, Sr., pled no contest to gross vehicular manslaughter and admitted three aggravating circumstance allegations. On appeal, defendant contends the minutes and abstract of judgment inaccurately reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment as to the statutory restitution fine and the parole revocation restitution fine. Finding no error, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Because defendant does not raise issues on appeal related to his plea nor admissions, we summarize only the relevant procedural history.

1

At defendant’s sentencing hearing, the trial court indicated it considered defendant’s probation report for the purpose of sentencing and defendant confirmed he received and reviewed a copy of the report. On page 7 of the report, under the heading “Recommendation” in typed print, item 2 recommends “[d]efendant pay a restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code[1] [s]ection 1202.4 in the amount of $1,200.” The trial court referred to pages 7-9 of the report and, after imposing “[o]nly mandatory minimum fines and fees,” pronounced, “Item 2. It says make restitution pursuant to . . . [s]ection 1202.4 -- no. Excuse me. That’s the fine. And I’m going to reduce the fine because I’m more interested in him making restitution to the victim.” The defense subsequently waived a detailed recitation of further conditions, fines, and fees. The trial court sentenced defendant to a prison term of four years. The minute order from the hearing noted two restitution fines of $300 each. The abstract of judgment imposed a $300 section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine (statutory restitution fine) and a $300 section 1202.45 parole revocation restitution fine (parole revocation fine). After the sentencing hearing, defendant asked the trial court to strike the statutory restitution fine and the parole revocation fine listed in the trial court’s minute order and abstract of judgment pursuant to section 1237.2. (People v. Fares (1993) 16 Cal.App.4th 954, 960 [counsel should attempt to correct administrative errors “in the trial court before elevating the issue to the stature of formal appeal”].) Our records indicate the trial court has not responded to defendant’s request. Defendant appeals. DISCUSSION Defendant contends, “The trial court erred when it permitted the entry of a restitution fine in the minutes and abstract of judgment without a corresponding oral