Filed 11/17/20 P. v. Pedregon CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOHN JOSEPH PEDREGON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D076282

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD274253)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Robert F. O’Neill, Judge. Appeal dismissed.

Charles R. Khoury, Jr., under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters and Julie L. 

Garland, Assistant Attorneys General, Robin Urbanski and Mary Katherine 

Strickland, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant John Joseph Pedregon entered a plea agreement under 

which he pleaded guilty to one count of felony stalking (Pen. Code, § 646.9, 

subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of the balance of the charges against him 
2

and a “No Opposition to Local Time” (NOLT) stipulation from the People. 

The trial court accepted the plea agreement, granted probation, and 

suspended imposition of sentence. Further, it imposed the following fines 

and fees: (1) a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); 

(2) a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); (3) a $154 

criminal justice administration fee (Gov. Code, § 29550.1); and (4) a $300 

restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)); and it imposed and stayed 

(5) a $300 probation revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44). 

Pedregon violated the terms and conditions of his probation and the 

trial court therefore revoked probation. The court sentenced Pedregon to 

prison for the upper term of three years and re-imposed the criminal 

conviction assessment, the court operations assessment, the criminal justice 

administration fee, the restitution fine, and the previously-suspended 

probation revocation restitution fine. It also imposed, but stayed, a

parole/postrelease community supervision revocation restitution fine of $300 

(Pen. Code, § 1202.45). 

Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, Pedregon 

appeals the judgment solely on grounds that the trial court imposed the fines 

and fees at issue without determining he had the ability to pay them.

Pedregon did not object to the fines and fees at the probation hearing, the 

sentencing hearing following the revocation of probation, or any time 

thereafter based on his alleged inability to pay.

Penal Code section 1237.2 provides that “[a]n appeal may not be taken 

by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in 

the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or 

costs unless the defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the time 

of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, the 
3

defendant first makes a motion for correction in the trial court, which may be 

made informally in writing. The trial court retains jurisdiction after a notice 

of appeal has been filed to correct any error in the imposition or calculation of 

fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs upon the defendant’s 

request for correction. This section only applies in cases where the erroneous 

imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or 

costs are the sole issue on appeal.” (Italics added.)

As our colleagues in the Second District have noted, Penal Code 

“section 1237.2 broadly applies to an error in the imposition or calculation of 

fees. The plain language of the statute ‘does not limit [its] reach only to 

situations where the fee simply did not apply at all or was a result of 

mathematical error.’ [Citation.] Section 1237.2 applies any time a defendant 

claims the trial court wrongly imposed fines, penalty assessments, 

surcharges, fees, or costs without having first presented the claim in the trial 

court ....” (People v. Hall (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 502, 504 (Hall).) 

Because the sole issue in this appeal concerns the imposition of fines 

and fees, and Pedregon did not present this issue in the trial court, Penal 

Code section 1237.2 compels that we dismiss the appeal. (Hall, supra, 39 

Cal.App.5th at p. 505 [applying Penal Code section 1237.2 and dismissing 

single-issue appeal in which the defendant alleged a Dueñas violation]; cf.

People v. Jenkins (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 30, 38 [a defendant need not seek 

relief in the trial court first “if issues other than the imposition or calculation 

of such fines, assessments, and fees are being appealed”].)

Pedregon contends Penal Code section 1237.2 does not apply because 

he purportedly raises two issues in this appeal—(1) whether the trial court 

erred in imposing fines and fees without determining he had the ability to 

pay them; and (2) whether his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by 
4

failing to alert the trial court about the Dueñas decision. We are not 

persuaded, given that the arguments are nearly identical in substance. Both 

arguments concern an alleged “error in the imposition ... of fines, penalty 

assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs ....” (Pen. Code, § 1237.2.) Under 

Penal Code section 1237.2, Pedregon was required to seek relief in the trial 

court in the first instance before pursuing this single-issue appeal. Because 

he has failed to do so, we must dismiss the appeal.

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed.

McCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HUFFMAN, J.

IRION, J.