Court Opinion

ID: 9372474
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-21 18:03:03.192353+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:35.680596
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/21/23 P. v. Price 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                C095882

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 21FE002983)

           v.

    SCOTT RICHARD PRICE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Scott Richard Price asked this court to conduct
an independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues
on appeal that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. (People v.
Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Our review of the record has disclosed that the
trial court failed to impose the required $300 stayed parole revocation restitution fine
(Pen. Code, § 1202.45)1 and the amended abstract of judgment failed to properly record
the credits for time served attributable to this case. We will amend the judgment to

1        Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                             1
impose and stay this fine, order the abstract of judgment corrected, and affirm the
judgment as modified.
                   FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       The complaint charged defendant with taking and driving a vehicle (Veh. Code,
§ 10851, subd. (a)) and several other crimes. Pursuant to a plea agreement, defendant
pleaded no contest to the taking and driving a vehicle count and the remainder of the
counts were dismissed.
       In April 2021, the trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months in
prison in this case (the “983 Case”), concurrent with sentences imposed in two other
cases: 20FE010249 (the “249 Case”) and 20FE002590 (the “590 Case”). The trial court
imposed a restitution fine of $300 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), a court security
fee of $40 under section 1465.8, a court facility fee of $30 under Government Code
section 70373, and ordered restitution in an amount to be determined. At the April 2021
sentencing, the trial court did not impose and suspend a $300 parole revocation restitution
fine pursuant to section 1202.45.
       In November 2021, defendant sent a letter to the trial court indicating he did not
commit the crime charged in the 983 Case, although he admitted he had possession of a
stolen car that he did not take and that he was under the influence. He further stated he
“did not get credit for . . . three cases that are sentenced concurrent.”
       Defendant filed a notice of appeal on January 26, 2022, without specifying the
date of the order or judgment he sought to appeal. He filed a second notice of appeal on
February 14, 2022, again failing to specify the appealable order.
       On February 18, 2022, the trial court issued an order nunc pro tunc to April 30,
2021, correcting the amounts of credit awarded and instructing the clerk to correct the
abstract of judgment.
       We deemed defendant’s February 14, 2022 notice of appeal to be from the court’s
February 18, 2022 postjudgment credits order issued nunc pro tunc to April 30, 2021.

                                               2
                                      DISCUSSION
       Appointed counsel for defendant filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of
the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any
arguable issues on appeal in accordance with Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436. Counsel
advised defendant of his right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of
filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and defendant has not filed a
supplemental brief.2
       While this appeal was pending, the California Supreme Court decided People v.
Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216, holding an appeal from the denial of postconviction
relief under section 1172.6 does not implicate a constitutional right to counsel, and thus
the procedures set out in Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 [18 L.Ed.2d 493] and
Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 do not apply. (Delgadillo, supra, at p. 226.) The
Delgadillo court further rejected the defendant’s claim that general due process principles
and the California Constitution requiring fundamental fairness mandate a Wende-type
review of his postjudgment order. (Id. at pp. 230-231.) In light of this holding, the
Delgadillo court specified a general procedure for providing defendant with additional
notice and an opportunity to file a supplemental brief in postjudgment appeals, however,
in that case, our high court elected to independently review the record in the interest of
judicial economy. (Id. at pp. 231-232.) We will follow that same path.
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we
note the trial court failed to orally impose the required $300 stayed parole revocation
restitution fine. (§ 1202.45.) We can and will correct the trial court’s failure to impose
this mandatory sentence requirement. (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853-854
[Court of Appeal may correct errors associated with mandatory sentencing choices

2      This court struck a packet of documents filed by defendant on October 27, 2022,
and returned it to defendant as unfiled, as it was not a supplemental brief.

                                              3
without the need to remand for further proceedings].) We also note the abstract of
judgment incorrectly identifies the proper cases for the credits for time served. The
abstract of judgment identifies this case as “Case B” and awards zero credits for time
served under item 16 of the abstract of judgment and instead shows those 145 days of
credit awarded under “Case C.” Those 145 days should be reflected under this case,
“Case B.” We will order that item corrected as well.
       Finding no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable
to defendant, we affirm the judgment as modified.
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is modified to impose and stay a $300 parole revocation restitution
fine. (§ 1202.45.) The trial court is further directed to correct the amended abstract of
judgment and February 18, 2022 minute order to reflect the imposition and stay of this
fine and move the credits for time served from “Case C” to “Case B.” The trial court
shall send a certified copy of the corrected amended abstract of judgment to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed as modified.

                                                        KRAUSE                , J.

We concur:

      RENNER                , Acting P. J.

      EARL                  , J.

                                             4