People v. Hedrick CA2/6

Filed 6/7/24 P. v. Hedrick CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B329740 (Super. Ct. No. 2012009723) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

PATRICK W. HEDRICK,

Defendant and Appellant.

Patrick W. Hedrick appeals a post-conviction order denying a motion to reduce restitution. We appointed counsel to represent appellant. After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief raising no issues and requested we follow the procedures set forth in People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). Appellant filed a supplemental brief, in propria persona, raising no meritorious issues. We dismiss the appeal because it challenges a non-appealable order.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of unlawful act with a child 10 years of age or younger (Pen. Code, § 288.7, subd. (b)1) and one count of lewd act upon a child (§ 288, subd. (a)) in 2013. The court imposed a term of 15 years to life on count one and a concurrent determinate term of six years on count two. It ordered appellant to pay restitution as follows: $5,000 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b) on both counts one and three; $1,850 to the parents of the victim under section 1202.4, subdivision (f) on count three; and $100,000 to the Victim’s Compensation Board under section 1202.4, subdivision (o) on count three; and a $3,200 Sexual Habitual Offender Program (SHOP) fine under section 290.3. We reduced the SHOP fine from $3,200 to $3,040 on direct appeal but otherwise affirmed the judgment of conviction. (People v. Hedrick (Jul. 23, 2014, B252433) [nonpub. opn.].) We summarily denied a petition for habeas corpus seeking to withdraw his plea on the grounds he was not informed of the amount of victim restitution that would be imposed at sentencing. (In re Hedrick (Oct. 16, 2018, B293197).) Appellant filed a “motion for modification of sentence to reduce restitution” in May of 2023. Citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), he argued the sentencing court imposed restitution he did not have the ability to pay. The trial court denied the motion because, among other reasons, appellant did not raise the issue at sentencing in 2013. “[Appellant]’s numerous post-conviction attacks on similar