Filed 2/26/18 P. v. Davis CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO



THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

ANTHONY LEONARD DAVIS,

Defendant and Appellant.


E069038

(Super.Ct.No. RIF086706)

O P I N I O N


APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. David A. Gunn, Judge. Affirmed.
Helen S. Irza, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On October 5, 2001, a jury convicted defendant and appellant, Anthony Leonard Davis, of first degree murder. (Pen. Code, § 187, count 1.) The jury additionally found true allegations defendant had committed the murder during the commission of a robbery (§§ 211, 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and personally discharged a firearm during his commission of the offense (§§ 12022.53, subd. (c), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). The court sentenced defendant to imprisonment for 25 years to life. The court additionally ordered defendant to pay a restitution fine in the amount of $10,000 pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b).
On August 9, 2017, Riverside County Superior Court personnel received what they characterized as “correspondence” from defendant. In the “correspondence,” defendant requested a hearing on his request for a reduction of the $10,000 restitution fine ordered by the sentencing court. On August 11, 2017, the court denied the request at an ex parte hearing, noting imposition of the fine was mandatory. On August 28, 2017, defendant filed an appeal from the ruling asserting that as an individual sentenced to a life sentence, section 1202.4 did not apply to him and that he had not been given a hearing at which to contest his ability to pay the fine.
II. DISCUSSION
After defendant filed the notice of appeal, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case and two potentially arguable issues: (1) whether defendant was entitled to a hearing on his ability to pay the fine and (2) whether the fine imposed was unauthorized.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done. Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error and find no arguable issues. (See People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227 [trial court did not improperly fail to consider defendant’s ability to pay restitution fine of $10,000 where the defendant was sentenced to death and offered no evidence of his inability to pay the fine].)
III. DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

McKINSTER
Acting P. J.


We concur:

MILLER
J.

SLOUGH
J.