1

Filed 3/9/21 P. v. Harris 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Glenn)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

KEITH CHARLES HARRIS,

Defendant and Appellant.

C089945

(Super. Ct. Nos. 

17NCR11784, 18NCR13030)

Following defendant Keith Charles Harris’s guilty pleas in two separate cases, the 

trial court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 12 years in prison and imposed a 

restitution fine above the mandatory minimum in each case. Defendant now challenges 

the imposition of the restitution fines based on his ability to pay. We will affirm the 

judgment.
2

BACKGROUND

In case No. 17NCR11784, defendant pleaded guilty to assault on two police 

officers (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (c)(2))

1 while using a dangerous and deadly weapon,

tear gas (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). He also admitted a prior strike conviction. (§§ 667, 

subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) In case No. 18NCR13030, defendant pleaded 

guilty to assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a prior strike

conviction. (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)(1).) At the sentencing hearing, 

the trial court struck the deadly weapon enhancement, imposed an aggregate sentence of 

12 years for both cases, and ordered defendant to pay a $3,000 restitution fine in case 

No. 17NCR11784 and a $600 restitution fine in case No. 18NCR13030.

Defendant did not object to the fines at sentencing, but he subsequently moved to 

stay the $3,600 in restitution fines under section 1237.2, which provides in relevant part 

that if the sole issue on appeal is a claim of error in the imposition fines, a defendant must 

first make a motion for correction in the trial court. (§ 1237.2.) Defendant asked the trial 

court to stay the restitution fines until the People showed defendant’s ability to pay, or in 

the alternative, to reduce the fines to the statutory minimum of $300 in each case and not 

employ the $300-per-year-of-incarceration formula. He argued that even if he earned the 

highest possible prison wage while incarcerated, he would still be unable to pay the 

$3,600 in fines. Following a hearing, the trial court denied the motion. The trial court’s 

written order does not provide a reason for the denial, and the appellate record does not 

include a transcript of the hearing on the motion.

DISCUSSION

Defendant challenges the imposition of the restitution fines based on his ability to 

pay. However, the appellate record indicates defendant gave the trial court an adequate 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

opportunity to consider defendant’s ability to pay, and the trial court nevertheless denied 

defendant’s motion to stay or reduce the restitution fines. Because the record does not 

contain a transcript of the hearing on defendant’s motion to stay or reduce the restitution 

fines, we must presume the trial court did its duty. Under the circumstances, we will 

affirm the judgment. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /S/

MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

 /S/

DUARTE, J.

 /S/

HOCH, J.