Court Opinion

ID: 9840468
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-18 18:03:41.344133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:46:35.149228
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/18/23 P. v. Corpos 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                                           NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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,                                                                                   C097283

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. 22FE007856)

           v.

 ROBERT VALARIANO CORPOS,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         Defendant Robert Valariano Corpos appeals from a judgment imposed after a jury
found him guilty of attempted carjacking and the trial court found he had a prior strike.
(Pen. Code, §§ 667, subd. (e)(1), 1170.12, subd. (c)(2); further undesignated section
references are to the Penal Code.) The trial court declined defendant’s invitation to strike
the prior strike under People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497 and
section 1385, instead imposing the upper term of four years and six months, doubled to
nine years because of the prior strike.

                                                             1
       Defendant’s sole contention is that the trial court abused its discretion when it
refused to apply changes brought about by Senate Bill No. 81 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to
strike his prior strike. But this court has already decided in People v. Burke (2023)
89 Cal.App.5th 237 that these legislative changes apply to requests to strike an
enhancement, and a prior strike is not an enhancement. (Id. at pp. 242-243.) Defendant
provides no cogent reason for us to deviate from Burke. We therefore affirm this portion
of the judgment.
       However, our review of the record discloses an unauthorized fine and an
unauthorized fee and errors in the abstract of judgment.
       Regarding the unauthorized fine and unauthorized fee, the trial court imposed a
$10 crime prevention programs fine (§ 1202.5) and a 20 percent criminal impact fee
(§ 1465.7, subd. (a)) levied upon the base fine. Attempted carjacking is not one of the
enumerated offenses for which the trial court may impose a $10 crime prevention
programs fine (§ 1202.5); only carjacking is. (See, e.g., People v. Jefferson (2016)
248 Cal.App.4th 660, 663 [§ 1202.5, subd. (a) fine does not apply to attempted
enumerated convictions, there attempted robbery].) Without the crime prevention
programs fine, there was no remaining fine to which the criminal impact fee could
attach. (See § 1202.4, subd. (e) [exempting restitution fines from penalty assessments,
including § 1465.7].) Therefore, both the crime prevention programs fine and criminal
impact fee must be stricken. (See e.g., People v. Allen (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 986, 989-
989 [modifying judgment to strike penalty assessment without qualifying fine].)

       Regarding the abstract of judgment, it mistakenly includes a $4 fee pursuant to
Government Code section 76000.10 that was not orally imposed by the trial court.
(People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070 [court’s oral pronouncement of the
judgment prevails over any conflicting language in the abstract judgment].)

                                             2
                                      DISPOSITION
       The $10 crime prevention programs fine (§ 1202.5) and a 20 percent criminal
impact fee (§ 1465.7, subd. (a)) are stricken. The judgment as modified is affirmed. The
trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment that (1) deletes the $10 crime
prevention programs fine (§ 1202.5); and (2) deletes the $4 fee (Gov. Code § 76000.10).1
The trial court shall then forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

                                                  /s/
                                                 MESIWALA, J.

We concur:

 /s/
ROBIE, Acting P. J.

 /s/
DUARTE, J.

1 We do not need to order the abstract of judgment corrected to delete the 20 percent
criminal impact fee, because it does not appear on the abstract.

                                             3