Court Opinion

ID: 9890923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-16 20:04:09.09285+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:31.745842
License: Public Domain

Filed 10/16/23 P. v. Zeissler 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097091

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                     (Super. Ct. No. 22CF03246)

           v.

 ALEX MATTHEW ZEISSLER,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Alex Matthew Zeissler pled no contest to battery causing serious bodily
injury. (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d); undesignated section references are to the Penal
Code.) On appeal, he contends the trial court erred by (1) sentencing him to state prison
instead of county jail; and (2) imposing a $250 domestic violence program fee. The first
contention is forfeited and the second is meritorious. We strike the fee and affirm the
judgment as modified.

                                                             1
                  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       The following facts are from the September 2022 probation report that defendant
stipulated to as the factual basis for his plea. In June 2022, a passerby found defendant’s
wife on the sidewalk in a fetal position. The passerby took the wife to the hospital, where
she was treated for injuries to her face, neck, torso, legs, arms, buttocks, and back. She
had bruises consistent with being strangled, and she required stitches for a laceration
behind her left ear.
       The wife initially told a police officer that she had been attacked and robbed. But
she later said that defendant had grown angry after a phone call. He threw her down onto
her back on the couch and then punched and slapped her repeatedly on her face,
abdomen, and torso. After defendant fell asleep, the wife left the house to look for help,
and the passerby found her.
       Defendant was charged with, among other things, battery causing serious bodily
injury (count 2). As to count 2, the information stated “ ‘NOTICE: The above offense is
a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7(c).’ ”
       In August 2022, defendant pled no contest to battery causing serious bodily injury,
“as alleged in Count 2.” During his plea, defendant agreed the trial court could “take
[the] factual basis from the probation report.”
       The September 2022 probation report stated that the current felony was a serious
felony and recommended defendant be sentenced to the middle term of three years in
state prison. The report also described the crime as involving great bodily harm, noting
that the victim required hospitalization and rehabilitation as a result of defendant’s
actions.
       During the September 2022 sentencing hearing, the trial court announced it was
inclined to follow the probation department’s recommendation and impose a three-year
prison sentence. Defense counsel responded that probation was appropriate but did not
argue for a county jail sentence. The trial court denied probation and sentenced

                                              2
defendant to three years in state prison. The trial court also imposed a $250 domestic
violence program fee “pursuant to [section] 1463.27.”
                                       DISCUSSION
                                                I
              Defendant Has Forfeited His Contention That He Should Have
                   Been Sentenced to County Jail Instead of State Prison
       Defendant contends the trial court erred by sentencing him to state prison instead
of county jail. This contention is forfeited.
       A defendant must serve a state prison sentence if he has a prior or current serious
or violent felony conviction. (§§ 1170, subd. (h), 667.5, subd. (c) [violent felonies],
1192.7, subd. (c) [serious felonies].) Battery causing serious bodily injury is not a violent
felony. So a prison sentence was appropriate only if defendant’s crime was a serious
felony based on defendant personally inflicting great bodily injury. (§ 1192.7,
subd. (c)(8); see also People v. Bueno (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1503, 1508 [although a
conviction for battery causing serious bodily injury is not necessarily a serious felony, it
can be if the defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury].)
       Despite pleading no contest to the battery charge “as alleged” (as a serious felony),
defendant argues the record does not reflect that he was convicted of a serious felony
since he did not admit that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. Defendant further
contends that he was never advised by his counsel or by the trial court that the conviction
might qualify as a serious felony, noting the plea form was silent on whether his
conviction was a serious felony.
       The People respond that defendant has forfeited the issue by failing to object.
(People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 351.) Defendant argues the sentence was
unauthorized because the trial court did not have authority to look to the facts as stated in
the probation report and find that he personally inflicted great bodily injury. We agree
with the People.

                                                3
         Given that battery causing serious bodily injury can be a serious felony if the
defendant personally inflicted great bodily injury, there is no merit in defendant’s
argument that the trial court imposed an unauthorized sentence. (§ 1192.7, subd. (c)(8);
People v. Bueno, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1508.) As such, to the extent he takes
issue with the way the trial court determined he personally inflicted great bodily injury,
he needed to raise that claim of error during sentencing. His failure to do so forfeits the
issue.
                                               II
                        The Domestic Violence Fee Must Be Stricken
         Defendant contends and the People agree, as do we, the court erred in imposing a
$250 domestic violence program fee. The statute authorizing such a fee does not list
defendant’s crime as a qualifying offense. (§ 1463.27, subd. (a) [fee statute]; § 243,
subd. (d) [defendant’s crime].)

                                               4
                                      DISPOSITION
       The judgment is modified to strike the $250 domestic violence program fee. As
modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended
abstract of judgment striking the fee that is currently reflected in item 8 of the abstract
and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation.

                                                    /s/
                                                   MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
MAURO, Acting P. J.

 /s/
WISEMAN, J.*

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by
the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              5