Filed 6/20/22 P. v. Avalos 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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,

 Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JUAN RODRIGUEZ AVALOS, 

 Defendant and Appellant.

2d Crim. No. B316891

(Super. Ct. No. BA173560-03)

(Los Angeles County)

Juan Rodriguez Avalos appeals from an order denying his 

motion to dismiss his restitution order pursuant to Assembly Bill 

(A.B.) 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.). For reasons we shall explain, 

we dismiss the appeal. 

In 1999, appellant was convicted of two counts of

residential robbery in concert with others (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 213,

subd. (a)(1)(A)),1 attempted robbery (§§ 664/211), residential 

burglary (§459), rape in concert (§ 264.1) and kidnapping to 

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

commit robbery (§ 209, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also found true the 

firearm (§ 12022.5, subd. (a)(1)) and one “strike” allegations 

(§ 667.61, subds. (a), (b), (e)). 

The trial court imposed a state prison sentence of 55 years 

to life and ordered appellant to pay a $10,000 restitution fine 

(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a “fee” of $200 pursuant to section 290.3, 

subdivision (a).) On direct appeal, we affirmed the convictions 

with modifications to the sentence. (People v. Lopez et al. (Apr. 

24, 2001, B138199) [nonpub. opn.].) 

Appellant filed an in pro. per. motion to dismiss the 

restitution fine pursuant to A.B. 1869, which went into effect on

January 1, 2021. The trial court summarily denied the motion, 

noting that A.B. 1869 does not apply to restitution fines imposed 

under section 1202.4, subdivision (b). Appellant filed a timely 

notice of appeal.2 

We appointed counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. 

After an examination of the record, counsel filed an opening brief 

which raises no arguable issues. We advised appellant he had 30 

days within which to personally submit any contentions or issues 

that he wished us to consider. He subsequently filed a two-page 

handwritten supplemental brief. 

Because this is an appeal from an order denying 

postconviction relief, appellant is not entitled to our independent 

review pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. (People 

2 The trial court could not locate a copy of appellant’s 

motion to include in the record on appeal. Appellant’s appointed 

counsel also was unable to locate the document in the court file or 

to obtain a copy from appellant. Nonetheless, the content of the 

motion is apparent from the court’s description of the motion in 

its order. 
3

v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 501; People v. Cole (2020) 

52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted Oct. 14, 2020, 

S264278.) We do, however, consider the issues raised in 

appellant’s supplemental brief. (Cole, at p. 1040.)

Appellant maintains that A.B. 1869 entitles him to relief 

from the $10,000 restitution fine. He is incorrect. A.B. 1869 

added section 1465.9, which repealed and made unenforceable a 

range of court-imposed costs. It had no effect, however, on 

restitution fines imposed under section 1202.4, subdivision (b).

Since nothing in appellant’s supplemental brief raises an 

arguable issue on appeal from the order denying his motion to 

dismiss the restitution fine, we dismiss the appeal. (People v. 

Serrano, supra, 211 Cal.App.4th at pp. 503-504.)

DISPOSITION

The appeal is dismissed. 

PERREN, J.

We concur:

GILBERT, P.J.

YEGAN, J.
4

Shelly Torrealba, Judge

Superior Court County of Los Angeles

______________________________

Richard B. Lennon, under appointment by the Court of 

Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. 

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.