People v. Bates CA3

Filed 5/29/24 P. v. Bates CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C099611

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 94F00475)

v.

JAMES BATES,

Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant James Bates asks this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. We affirm. BACKGROUND Defendant and two others entered the victim’s house, bound his hands, beat him, and strangled him with a belt and a coat hanger. Defendant and his confederates stole

1

items from the house and left. The victim may have been alive when they left, but he was found dead two days later. The operative complaint charged defendant with murder, robbery, and burglary. It alleged defendant committed the murder while engaged in the commission of a robbery. It also alleged defendant had a prior serious felony conviction and had served a prior prison term. In 1995, defendant pled guilty to first degree murder and admitted to the prior serious felony conviction and prior prison term allegations. The trial court dismissed the remaining counts and allegation. The court sentenced defendant to 31 years to life in prison consisting of 25 years to life for the murder, five years for the prior serious felony conviction, and one year for the prior prison term. The court imposed a restitution fine of $6,488 and victim restitution of $3,512. In March 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss the $6,488 restitution fine and a corresponding $6,488 parole revocation restitution fine (Penal Code, § 1202.45; further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code) pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill No. 1869).1 The trial court denied defendant’s motion, concluding Assembly Bill No. 1869 did “not alter the validity of [d]efendant’s restitution fine or restitution to the victim.” Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. He did not obtain a certificate of probable cause. DISCUSSION Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable