1

Filed 6/18/24 P. v. Carranza 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication 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

(Sacramento)

----

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

RICARDO ARMANDO CARRANZA,

Defendant and Appellant.

C098523

(Super. Ct. No. 21FE001728)

A jury found defendant Ricardo Armando Carranza guilty on six counts of 

robbery, one count of attempted robbery, and one count of misdemeanor evading a 

police officer in a motor vehicle. As relevant here, the probation report recommended 

eight mandatory $40 court operations assessments totaling $320 under Penal Code 

section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1),1 and eight mandatory $30 court facility assessments 

totaling $240 under Government Code section 70373. At the sentencing hearing, defense 

counsel argued for a low term and the prosecutor argued for an upper term, but neither 

one addressed fines or assessments. The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate 

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
2

prison term of eight years eight months, imposed a $1,000 restitution fine and a $1,000 

parole revocation fine, and otherwise imposed minimum mandatory fees and 

assessments. Defendant did not object to the assessments or ask the trial court to more 

specifically describe them or their statutory basis.

Defendant now challenges on appeal the court operations assessments totaling

$320 and the court facility assessments totaling $240, arguing that because the trial court 

only imposed mandatory assessments and the challenged assessments are not mandatory, 

they were not orally imposed. Disagreeing with defendant’s argument, we will affirm the 

judgment.

DISCUSSION

Defendant claims the challenged assessments were not mandatory, but that is 

incorrect. Section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), provides, “an assessment of forty dollars 

($40) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense,” and Government 

Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1), provides that “an assessment shall be imposed on 

every conviction for a criminal offense. . . . The assessment shall be imposed in the 

amount of thirty dollars ($30) for each misdemeanor or felony.” Both assessments are 

mandatory. (See People v. Standish (2006) 38 Cal.4th 858, 869; People v. Robinson

(2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 401, 405.)

Nevertheless, defendant cites People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 for 

the proposition that the assessments should not have been imposed without a 

determination of defendant’s ability to pay. (Id. at pp. 1164, 1168.) However, defendant 

did not assert Dueñas at sentencing, even though the hearing occurred years after that 

decision issued. Defendant has forfeited any argument that Dueñas should be applied

here. (People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 624.)

Defendant argues he did not have an opportunity to assert his inability to pay 

because the trial court did not specify the assessments imposed. Regarding specification 

of the assessments, at sentencing the trial court repeatedly mentioned the probation 
3

report, which described the assessments as mandatory and identified their statutory basis. 

Although the trial court could have been clearer at sentencing, this record is 

distinguishable from the cases cited by defendant. In People v. Hartley (2016) 

248 Cal.App.4th 620, there was no trial court reference to the probation report, but the 

court of appeal recognized that a trial court could provide an adequate description by 

referencing materials containing the required information. (Id. at pp. 635-637.) People v. 

Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380 is likewise distinguishable because in that opinion 

there was no indication the trial court referenced mandatory assessments listed in a 

probation report. (Id. at p. 387.)

As for defendant’s opportunity to assert his inability to pay, the trial court imposed 

a $1,000 restitution fine, which was $700 above the statutory minimum, and defendant 

did not object or present evidence of his inability to pay. (§ 1202.4, subds. (b)(1), (c), 

(d).) Under the circumstances, there is no basis to conclude he would have presented 

evidence at the sentencing hearing of his inability to pay the challenged assessments.

On this record, defendant’s arguments lack merit.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.

 /S/

MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

 /S/

RENNER, J.

 /S/

MESIWALA, J.