Filed 9/27/21 P. v. Brown CA2/7

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SEVEN

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

CHRISTOPHER ANTHONY 

BROWN,

Defendant and Appellant.

 B312864

 (Los Angeles County

 Super. Ct. No. MA037315)

APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court

of Los Angeles County, Lisa Strassner, Comissioner. Affirmed. 

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance by Plaintiff and Respondent. 

________________
2

Christopher Anthony Brown was convicted following a jury 

trial in 2014 of two counts of first degree murder with true 

findings on a multiple-murder special-circumstance allegation 

and firearm-use enhancements. He was sentenced to 

two consecutive indeterminate state prison terms of life without 

parole plus two consecutive terms of 25 years to life. In addition, 

at sentencing the court ordered Brown to pay direct victim 

restitution of $2,964 and imposed statutory fines, fees and 

assessments, including the maximum restitution fine of $10,000. 

We affirmed the convictions and sentence on appeal. (People v. 

Brown (March 8, 2016, B255316) [nonpub. opn.].) 

In April 2021 Brown, representing himself, filed a motion 

to vacate the fines, fees and assessments imposed at sentencing, 

purportedly pursuant to Penal Code section 1237.2,1 arguing the 

trial court had not considered his ability to pay the amounts 

imposed as required by this court’s decision in People v. Dueñas

(2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. The superior court denied the 

motion on May 4, 2021, explaining Brown had the opportunity 

1 Penal Code section 1237.2 authorizes the trial court to 

correct any error in the imposition or calculation of fines, 

assessments, fees or costs while the defendant’s direct appeal 

from the judgment of conviction is pending. It does not confer 

jurisdiction for the court to hear a motion to vacate or modify a 

sentence long after the judgment is final. Indeed, a trial court 

generally has no jurisdiction to modify a defendant’s sentence 

after execution of the sentence has begun (People v. Karaman 

(1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344; People v. Hernandez (2019) 

34 Cal.App.5th 323, 326), and an order denying such a motion 

can properly be dismissed as nonappealable. (People v. Torres

(2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 1081, 1084.)
3

but did not object to imposition of a restitution fine above the 

statutory minimum based on his inability to pay. 

Brown filed a timely notice of appeal. In accord with the 

procedures described in People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 

1023, review granted October 14, 2020, S264278, we appointed 

counsel to represent him. After a review of the record, Brown’s 

appointed appellate counsel did not identify any arguable issues

and so informed this court. On August 10, 2021 appointed 

counsel advised Brown he could personally submit any

contentions he believed the court should consider. We sent a 

similar notice on the same date. 

On September 16, 2021 Brown filed a nine-page typed 

supplemental brief arguing the superior court prejudicially erred 

in denying his motion to vacate the restitution fine based on his 

indigency. Brown asserted imposition of the $10,000 restitution 

fine without determining his ability to pay violated his 

constitutional rights, as set forth in this court’s decision in People 

v. Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 and decisions from other 

courts of appeal that have employed an excessive fines, rather 

than a due process, analysis. Citing our decision in People v. 

Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, Brown also argued his 

failure to raise his inability to pay at his sentencing hearing in 

2014 did not forfeit his constitutional claim because Dueñas

announced a constitutional principle that could not have been 

reasonably anticipated. However, as the superior court explained 

in denying Brown’s motion, Penal Code section 1202.4, which 

mandates imposition of a restitution fine following a felony 

conviction, expressly authorized the court to consider a 

defendant’s inability to pay when increasing the amount of the 

restitution fine above the $300 statutory minimum. (Pen. Code, 
4

§ 1202.4, subd. (c).) Brown thus had the opportunity to raise his 

inability to pay and failed to do so. The superior court properly 

denied Brown’s motion.

Because no cognizable legal issues have been raised by 

Brown’s appellate counsel or by Brown or identified in our 

independent review of the record, the order denying the 

postjudgment motion is affirmed. (See People v. Cole, supra, 

52 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1039-1040, review granted; see also People 

v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503; see generally People 

v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 118-119; People v. Wende (1979) 

25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.)

DISPOSITION

The postjudgment order is affirmed.

PERLUSS, P. J.

We concur:

SEGAL, J.

FEUER, J.