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Filed 6/18/24 P. v. Carranza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 o n six counts of robbery, one count of attempted robbery , and one count of misdemeanor evading a police officer in a motor vehicl e

. 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 e ight years eight months , imposed a $1,000 restitution fine and a $1,000 parole revocation fine, and otherwise imposed minimum mandatory f e es 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 challenge s on appeal the court operations assessment s totaling $320 and the court facility assessments totaling $2 40 , arguing that because the trial court only imposed mandatory assessments and the challenged assessments a re not mandatory , the y were not orally impose d. Disagreeing with defendant’s argument, we will affirm the judgment

. DISCUSSION
D efendant 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, subdivi sion (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 .” B oth 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. Due ñ as (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 for the proposition that the assessments shou ld not have be en imposed without a
determination of defendant’s ability to pay . ( Id. at pp. 1164, 1168 .) However, defendant
did not assert Due ñ as at sentencing , even though the hearing occurred years after that
decision issued . D efendant has forfeited a ny argument that Due ñ as should be applied here. ( People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 624.)
D efendant argu es he did not have an opportunity to assert his in ability 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 probation3

report, which described the assessments as mandatory and identifie d 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 probatio n 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 distinguish able 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 restitutio n fine , which was $700 above the statutory minimum , and defendant did not object or present evidence of his in ability to pay . (§ 1202.4, subd s . (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 assessment s

. 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.