Filed 1/6/23 P. v. Robinson CA2/3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

REGGIE ROBINSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

B318155

(Los Angeles County

Super. Ct. No. NA112604)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los 

Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed as 

modified.

Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, 

for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

________________________
2

Reggie Robinson appeals from a no-contest plea to lewd 

acts on a child (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a)). His appellate 

counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436

(Wende), requesting that we independently review the appeal. 

Our independent review discloses an error in the abstract of 

judgment and in the fines and assessments imposed. We will 

therefore modify the judgment to correct the errors.

The victim, Robinson’s daughter, was 15 years old when 

she testified at a preliminary hearing in February 2020. She 

testified that the year before she gave birth to a baby who died. 

Robinson was the baby’s father.

On January 6, 2022, Robinson, per a negotiated plea,

pleaded no contest to three counts of lewd acts on a child under 

the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) and stipulated that all three 

counts were for separate incidents.2

On January 18, 2022, the trial court sentenced Robinson to 

the high term of eight years on count 1 and to consecutive six 

year terms on each of the remaining two counts, for a total of 20 

years in prison. Robinson stipulated to $14,065.06 in victim 

restitution. The trial court also imposed a $5,000 restitution fine 

(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $5,000 parole revocation fine, suspended 

(§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 

criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $300 

sex offender fine (§ 290.3). The trial court awarded Robinson

1,024 days of custody credits.

1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the 

Penal Code. 

2 Robinson did not admit a factual basis for the plea, per

People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595. 
3

Robinson filed a notice of appeal and requested a certificate 

of probable cause, which this record does not reflect was granted 

or denied. We treat the request as having been denied. (See 

§ 1237.5, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)

Robinson’s court-appointed counsel then filed an opening 

brief that raised no issues and asked this court to independently

review the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. 

A defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or 

guilty without a certificate of probable cause may only challenge 

the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or raise grounds 

arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the plea’s 

validity. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); People v. 

Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676–677 & fn. 3.) 

Robinson, who was representing himself in the trial court, 

moved to prohibit use of DNA evidence. The record does not 

show that the trial court ruled on the motion or that Robinson 

pursued a ruling. No arguable issue therefore appears on this 

record as to the motion.

However, there are errors in the abstract of judgment. The 

trial court imposed $14,065.06 in victim restitution but the 

January 18, 2022 minute order and abstract of judgment 

incorrectly state the amount as $14,604.06 and as $14,605.06.

The abstract of judgment also does not reflect the $300 sex 

offender fine the trial court imposed, presumably under section 

290.3, subdivision (a), at the sentencing hearing. Once a section 

290.3, subdivision (a), sex offender fine is imposed, the trial court 

must also impose penalty assessments under section 1464, 

subdivision (a), and Government Code section 76000, subdivision 

(a). (People v. Stewart (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 907, 911.) Section 

1464, subdivision (a)(1), requires a penalty of $10 for every $10 
4

(or part of $10) of the $300 fine, which is, here, a total penalty of 

$300. Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a)(1),

requires a penalty of $7 for every $10 (or part of $10) of the $300 

fine, for a total penalty here of $210. Robinson’s total mandatory 

penalty assessment is $510. A trial court’s failure to impose 

those penalty assessments is a jurisdictional error that may be 

raised for the first time on appeal. (Stewart, at pp. 911–912.) We 

therefore direct the superior court to modify the abstract of 

judgment.

We have otherwise examined the record and are satisfied 

no arguable issues exist and Robinson’s attorney has complied 

with the responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 

Cal.4th 106, 125–126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)
5

DISPOSITION

We modify the judgment to include $510 in section 290.3 

penalty assessments under section 1464, subdivision (a), and 

Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a). The trial court 

is directed to modify the abstract of judgment to reflect the $300 

sex offender fine, $510 penalty assessments, and $14,065.06 in 

victim restitution. The trial court is directed to forward the 

modified abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL 

REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

We concur:

EGERTON, J.

RICHARDSON (ANNE K.), J.*

* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned 

by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the 

California Constitution.