Court Opinion

ID: 9926560
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-24 22:02:12.968812+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:19.616129
License: Public Domain

Filed 1/24/24 P. v. Hickerson 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C098467

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 20FE005074)

           v.

 JONATHAN MICHAEL HICKERSON,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         This appeal comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.
Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we will direct the trial court to correct
the abstract of judgment and minute order to reflect the fines and fees imposed and stayed
during the trial court’s oral pronouncement at sentencing. Finding no arguable error that
would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant, we will affirm.

                                                             1
                                     BACKGROUND
       We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. The People’s April 3, 2023, amended information charged defendant with two
counts of sexual battery with unlawful restraint (Pen. Code, § 243.4, subd. (a))1 and
alleged these batteries were committed on separate occasions under section 667.6.
       At trial, the People presented evidence that defendant sexually assaulted his
ridesharing service driver Rachael in April 2019. Rachael picked up two intoxicated
passengers, including defendant. Following pickup, Rachael politely declined
defendant’s repeated romantic advances. After completion of the ride, one passenger
exited, but defendant wedged himself between the front seats, pressing himself against
Rachael, and making it impossible for her to unfasten her seat belt to exit the car or reach
her phone. Defendant kissed and sucked on Rachael’s neck, grabbed her breast
(exposing it), and sucked on her nipple. Rachael immediately and repeatedly told
defendant no, to stop, and to get out of the car, but he did not comply. Eventually,
defendant exited the car after the other passenger intervened, and Rachael drove to a safe
location to call 911. A medical exam revealed bruising on Rachael’s breast. During
defendant’s police interview, he eventually admitted kissing Rachael’s neck and cheek,
as well as grabbing and sucking on her breast.
       Defendant presented two character witnesses who attested that he was a respectful
and nonaggressive person. Defendant also testified, admitting he had engaged in what he
thought was consensual sexual contact with Rachael.
       The jury found defendant guilty on both counts, but found the allegation that the
batteries were committed on separate occasions not true.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                             2
       The trial court denied defendant’s request for probation and sentenced him to the
lower term of two years in prison for each battery, staying the sentence on one count
pursuant to section 654. The court awarded defendant 25 days of actual credit, plus 25
days of conduct credit for a total of 50 days of custody credit. The court imposed but
stayed “all fines and fees” and ordered victim restitution in an amount to be determined.
Defendant timely appealed.
                                       DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts 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 of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed,
and we received no communication from defendant.
       Finding no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to
defendant, we affirm the judgment. However, our review of the record has revealed that
the April 28, 2023, minute order as well as the abstract of judgment fail to acknowledge
that the $300 restitution fine was stayed. Both documents fail to note that the trial court
imposed and stayed two $30 conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373) and two $40
court operations assessments (§ 1465.8). The abstract of judgment and minute order
following sentencing must be corrected to reflect these changes.

                                              3
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed. The trial court clerk is directed to correct the abstract of
judgment and minute order after sentencing to correctly reflect the imposed and stayed
status of the applicable fines and fees.

                                                        /s/
                                                  Duarte, J.

We concur:

     /s/
Robie, Acting P. J.

     /s/
Krause, J.

                                              4