Court Opinion

ID: 9899887
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-17 20:05:12.164589+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:52.893553
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/17/23 P. v. Dunn 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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

                                                         (Yuba)
                                                            ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C098585

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                                (Super. Ct. Nos. CRF23-00373,
           v.                                                                           CRF23-00530)

 MARK ALLEN DUNN,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Appointed counsel for defendant Mark Allen Dunn asked this court to conduct an
independent review of the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on
appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) We have reviewed the record and will
correct a minor error in the fines imposed, but otherwise affirm the judgment.

                                                             1
                         FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS
       We provide the following brief description of the facts and procedural history of
the case. (See People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 110, 123-124.)
       This appeal involves two cases. In case No. CRF23-00373, the prosecution
charged defendant with one count of driving or taking a vehicle without consent. (Veh.
Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Defendant then failed to appear in court for that case, and the
prosecution initiated case No. CRF23-00530, charging defendant with one count of
failure to appear while on bail. (Pen. Code, § 1320.5; statutory section citations that
follow are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.) The prosecution also alleged
defendant was released from custody on bail at the time of the offense. (§ 12022.1.)
       Defendant resolved both cases with a plea agreement in which he pleaded no
contest to both counts for a maximum combined sentence of two years in local custody.
The prosecution agreed to dismiss the remaining allegation. The parties agreed the
factual basis could be drawn from the pretrial release report and the records within the
court’s files. According to the report, a sheriff’s deputy stopped defendant after seeing
him driving a car that was reported as stolen. Defendant said he had purchased the
vehicle from the victim but was warned the victim could be mentally ill and might report
the vehicle as stolen.
       At the sentencing hearing, defendant asked the trial court to grant probation.
Considering defendant’s criminal history, which included misdemeanor and felony
convictions and multiple failures to appear, the court denied defendant’s request. The
trial court sentenced defendant to the low term of 16 months for the driving a vehicle
without consent conviction in CRF23-00373, plus a consecutive sentence of eight months
for the failure to appear conviction in CRF23-00530, for an aggregate total of two years
in local prison. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $40 court security

                                             2
fee (§ 1465.8) for each conviction, and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code,
§ 70373) for each conviction.
       Defendant timely appealed without a certificate of probable cause.

                                        DISCUSSION
       We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening
brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history 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 his right
to file a supplemental brief within 30 days from the date the opening brief was filed.
More than 30 days have elapsed, and defendant has not filed a supplemental brief.
       After examining the record, we note the court erred by not imposing and
suspending a mandatory parole revocation restitution fine in both cases. While the court
imposed $300 restitution fines pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), in each case, it
did not impose an identical parole revocation restitution fine in each case, which section
1202.45 requires.
       Subdivision (a) of section 1202.45 provides: “In every case where a person is
convicted of a crime and his or her sentence includes a period of parole, the court shall, at
the time of imposing the restitution fine pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4,
assess an additional parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount as that imposed
pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4.” (§ 1202.45, subd. (a).) Subdivision (c)
provides such fines shall be suspended unless parole is revoked. (§ 1202.45, subd. (c).)
       We will modify the judgment to impose the appropriate parole revocation
restitution fines, stayed unless parole is revoked, and direct the trial court to issue an
amended abstract of judgment. (People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853-854.)
       Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find
no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

                                               3
                                       DISPOSITION
       The judgment is modified to reflect a $300 parole revocation fine under section
1202.45, suspended unless parole is revoked, in case No. CRF23-00373 and case No.
CRF23-00530. The trial court is directed to issue an amended abstract of judgment
reflecting these amounts and forward a certified copy to the Yuba County Sheriff’s
Office. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.

                                                  HULL, Acting P. J.

We concur:

RENNER, J.

KEITHLEY, J.

 Judge of the Butte County Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to
article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                              4