Court Opinion

ID: 9840960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-20 20:04:54.396029+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:32:00.258994
License: Public Domain

Filed 9/20/23 P. v. Hernandez CA4/1
                 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.

                COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                 DIVISION ONE

                                         STATE OF CALIFORNIA

 THE PEOPLE,                                                          D082087

           Plaintiff and Respondent,

           v.                                                         (Super. Ct. No. RIF129735)

 STEVEN G. HERNANDEZ,

           Defendant and Appellant.

         APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County,
Gail A. O’Rane, Judge. Affirmed.
         Steven G. Hernandez, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
         No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
         In 2007, a jury convicted Steven G. Hernandez of three counts of

assault with a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(2)), two counts of felon in
possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), shooting into an inhabited
dwelling (§ 246) and first degree burglary (§ 459). The court made a true

1        All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
finding that Hernandez had suffered two strike prior convictions (§ 667,
subds. (b)-(i)) and that Hernandez also had a serious felony prior conviction
(§ 667, subd. (a)(1)).
      The court sentenced Hernandez to an indeterminate term of 25 years to
life in prison on each count. The court imposed various fines and assessment
including a $5,000 restitution fine.
      In 2023, Hernandez filed a nonstatutory “motion” to stay all fines and
fees in excess of $200. The trial court denied the “motion” by written order,
finding there were no fines or fees due, thus there was nothing to stay.
      Hernandez filed a notice of appeal.
      Although appellate counsel doubts the purported appeal is from an
appealable order, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo
(2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to
identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel
asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for
error under the procedure used in cases controlled by People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Hernandez he could file his own brief on
appeal. He has responded with a lengthy document, which we have
reviewed. As we will discuss below, his submission does not raise any

potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.2
                                 DISCUSSION
      Appellate counsel recognizes this purported appeal from the denial of
Hernandez’s motion to vacate certain fines and fees which were imposed in
the original judgment is governed by Delgadillo. Under the procedure

2     The facts of the 2007 offenses are not relevant to the resolution of this
particular appeal. Therefore, we will exempt a statement of facts in this
opinion.
                                       2
established by our Supreme Court, our court can exercise its discretion to
follow the Wende procedure. We have independently reviewed the record for
error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal
on appeal.
      Hernandez’s brief has not raised any such issues. The supplemental
brief assumes the trial court had jurisdiction to revisit the fines and fees
contained in a judgment that has been final for a decade or more. There is
nothing in the record to support a claim that any of the fines and fees
imposed in the original judgment are unauthorized.
      The trial court reviewed Hernandez’s motion and concluded there are
no unpaid fines which are due. Hernandez supports his claim by copies of the
abstract of judgment from 2009. He did not establish in the trial court any
specific fines which are subject to collection at this time. In short, Hernandez
has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
                                DISPOSITION
      The order denying Hernandez’s motion to vacate all fines in excess of
$200 is affirmed.

                                                       HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

KELETY, J.

                                        3