P. v. Hussey CA3
mk's Membership Status
Usergroup: Administrator
Listings Submitted: 0 listings
Total Comments: 0 (0 per day)
Last seen: 05:23:2018 - 13:04:09
Biographical Information
Contact Information
Submission History
P. v. Mendieta CA4/1
Asselin-Normand v. America Best Value Inn CA3
In re C.B. CA3
P. v. Bamford CA3
P. v. Jones CA3
Find all listings submitted by mk
By mk
05:27:2017
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(Shasta)
----
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
RONALD TIMOTHY HUSSEY,
Defendant and Appellant.
C082208
(Super. Ct. No. 16F2092)
This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we order imposition of the mandatory court facility assessment and court security fee and otherwise affirm the judgment.
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, 124.)
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Law enforcement contacted defendant Ronald Timothy Hussey on April 4, 2016. A check of defendant’s records revealed that he was convicted of felony sexual abuse in Oregon and had not registered as a sex offender since 2010. Law enforcement investigated further and learned that defendant began staying at the Good News Rescue Mission on January 6, 2016, but failed to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290) upon his arrival in California.
The prosecution charged defendant with three felonies, including the failure to report a change of address to law enforcement (Pen. Code, § 290.013), and two misdemeanors. The prosecution further alleged defendant was previously convicted of robbery in Shreveport, Louisiana, in May 2011, a strike offense.
Defendant pleaded guilty to failure to report a change of address to law enforcement and admitted he was previously convicted of robbery, a strike offense. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the People moved to dismiss the remaining charges. The People also agreed defendant would serve the lower term of 16 months in state prison, doubled to 32 months for the prior strike.
Defendant waived a presentence report and the trial court immediately sentenced him to 32 months in state prison. The court also awarded defendant 33 days of custody credit and ordered him to pay a $300 restitution fine, staying a $300 parole revocation fine. The court stayed all other fines and fees and ordered defendant to register as a sex offender pursuant to Penal Code section 290 upon completion of his sentence.
The trial court denied defendant’s request for a certificate of probable cause.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. However, the court failed to impose the mandatory $30 court facility assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70373 and the mandatory court security fee of $40 pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8. We are able to modify the judgment on appeal with respect to mandatory impositions (People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1157), so we shall order imposition of those mandatory fines erroneously stayed by the trial court.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to include a $40 court security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 and a $30 criminal conviction assessment pursuant to Government Code section 70373. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The clerk of the trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
MURRAY , J.
We concur:
NICHOLSON , Acting P. J.
HULL , J.
Description | This case comes to us pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Having reviewed the record as required by Wende, we order imposition of the mandatory court facility assessment and court security fee and otherwise affirm the judgment. 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, 124.) |
Rating | |
Views | 11 views. Averaging 11 views per day. |