Court Opinion

ID: 9896295
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-09 21:05:24.61284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:38.247772
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/9/23 P. v. Mendoza CA2/2
   NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

                         SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                        DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,                                                  B323588

         Plaintiff and Respondent,                           (Los Angeles County
                                                             Super. Ct. No. KA130003)
         v.

ROBERT ANGEL MENDOZA,

         Defendant and Appellant.

      APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Robert Serna, Judge. Reversed and remanded
with directions.

      Teresa Biagini, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
      Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Roberta L. Davis and Nikhil Cooper,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

                               ******
       After a jury convicted Robert Angel Mendoza (defendant) of
arson, the trial court orally imposed a prison sentence but no
fines or assessments. However, the minute order and abstract of
judgment reflected fines and assessments. This was error. We
accordingly strike those fees and assessments and remand for
their proper imposition, and to give defendant the opportunity to
argue that he lacks the ability to pay the $370 to be imposed.
         FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
       In September 2021, defendant—who was 46 years old at
the time—was living in the detached garage behind his mother’s
house. After she kicked him out, he broke back in and, in a fit of
pique, set it ablaze.
       The People charged defendant with one felony count of
arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (c)).1 The People further
alleged that defendant had nine prior felony convictions (§ 1203,
subd. (e)(4)).
       In August 2022, a jury found defendant guilty as charged.
       Later that same month, the trial court sentenced defendant
to the upper term of six years in state prison, and imposed a 10-
year criminal protective order. The trial court did not impose any
restitution fines, fees, or other assessments.
       In a subsequently issued minute order and abstract of

1     All further statutory references are to the Penal Code
unless otherwise indicated.

                                2
judgment, the court clerk indicated that the trial court had
ordered defendant to pay: (1) a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, §
1202.4, subd. (b)); (2) a $300 parole revocation restitution fine
(Pen. Code, § 1202.45), which the court stayed; (3) unspecified
victim restitution (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)); (4) a $30
criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); and (5) a
$40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd.
(a)(1)).
       Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
                            DISCUSSION
       Defendant argues that the fines and assessments reflected
in the minute order and abstract of judgment must be stricken
because the trial court did not impose them as part of its oral
pronouncement of sentence. As the People concede, defendant is
correct on this point. (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th
380, 387-389.) We must therefore remand this matter to the trial
court to orally impose these fines and assessments. Defendant
asserts that the imposition of these fines and assessments may
violate due process if he is unable to pay them, citing People v.
Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. Because the validity of
Dueñas is still pending before our Supreme Court (see People v.
Hicks (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 320, review granted Nov. 26, 2019,
S258946), defendant remains free to raise that argument on
remand.
       This appeal is also procedurally proper. Section 1237.2
requires a defendant who, on appeal, is challenging only the
calculation of fines, assessments, or fees to first call that error to
the attention of the trial court, even if that appeal is already
pending; failure to do so bars the appeal. (§ 1237.2.) Defendant
had yet to comply with this procedure at the time the People filed

                                  3
their respondent’s brief, but brought himself into compliance five
days before filing his reply brief on appeal. In light of the
People’s concession of error on the merits, we solicited the parties’
input on how best to get this matter back before the trial court for
further proceedings. The parties filed a joint response in which
they agreed that the appeal was now procedurally proper, that
the trial court’s sentencing error warranted remand, that oral
argument (and notice of oral argument) should be waived, and
that it would be “more efficient and fair” (presumably, for the
parties) for this Court to issue an opinion rather than the parties
stipulating to a remand.

                                 4
                          DISPOSITION
       The matter is reversed and remanded to the trial court to
(1) strike the fines and assessments from the minute order of
sentencing and the abstract of judgment; and (2) conduct an
ability to pay hearing to determine what fines or assessments
should be imposed. In all other respects, the judgment is
affirmed.
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

                                    ______________________, J.
                                    HOFFSTADT

We concur:

_________________________, Acting P.J.
ASHMANN-GERST

_________________________, J.
CHAVEZ

                                5