1

Filed 7/21/22 P. v. Barr 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL SHAWN BARR, JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

C093474

(Super. Ct. No. 19CF05289, 

20CF01390)

Appointed counsel for defendant Michael Shawn Barr, Jr., has asked this court to 

review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 

(People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Having conducted this review, we will 

modify the judgment to correct the trial court’s failure to impose defendant’s restitution 

fine and parole revocation restitution fine per case. Finding no other errors that would 

result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as 

modified.
2

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant resolved multiple cases by pleading no contest to specified counts on 

November 5, 2020. Relevant to this appeal, in case No. 19CF05289, defendant pled no 

contest to receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)),1 and in case 

No. 20CF01390, defendant pled no contest to criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)).

Defendant agreed to a stipulated term comprised of the upper term for the criminal threats 

count plus a consecutive term for the stolen property count. The remaining counts and 

all other allegations were dismissed. The stipulated factual bases for the pleas were taken 

from defendant’s declaration of probable cause for detention and bail setting documents 

for the respective cases. 

The probation department prepared presentence reports limited to the calculation 

of fines, fees, and custody credits for these cases, and sentencing was held on January 7, 

2021. The trial court sentenced defendant in accordance with the plea agreement to an 

aggregate prison term of three years eight months. The trial court further incorporated by 

reference the fines and fees recommended in the probation report, thereby requiring that 

defendant pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and a suspended $300 parole revocation 

restitution fine (§ 1202.45), plus two criminal conviction assessment fees of $30 (Gov. 

Code, § 70373) and two court operations assessment fees of $40 (§ 1465.8). Finally, the 

court at a later hearing awarded defendant credit for 93 actual days, plus 92 conduct days,

plus seven stayed days, for a total of 192 custody credit days.

Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal on February 3, 2021, and did not request 

a certificate of probable cause. 

1

 Further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
3

II. DISCUSSION

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening 

brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to 

review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. 

(People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right 

to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed. 

More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we 

observe that the court’s oral pronouncement neglected to impose the $300 restitution and 

matching $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fines per case as required. (See 

People v. Soria (2010) 48 Cal.4th 58, 66 [restitution fines are to be imposed in each case

resolved by a plea bargain].) We can and will modify the judgment to correct this error. 

(See People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853-854 [errors concerning mandatory 

sentencing decisions are correctable on appeal without the need to remand for further 

proceedings].) Finding no other errors that would result in a disposition more favorable 

to defendant, we will affirm the judgment as modified.
4

III. DISPOSITION

The judgment is modified to reflect the imposition of a $300 restitution and 

matching $300 suspended parole revocation restitution fines in both case No. 19CF05289 

and case No. 20CF01390. Because the abstract of judgment already correctly reflects 

these amounts, no amendment to that document is necessary. The judgment is affirmed

as modified.

/S/

 

RENNER, J.

We concur:

/S/

 

MAURO, Acting P. J.

/S/

 

HOCH, J.