Filed 4/5/22 P. v. Jones CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THREE
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DERRICK JONES,
Defendant and Appellant.
| B315363
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. LA037942)
|
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Michael V. Jesic, Judge. Affirmed.
Richard B. Lennon and Cheryl Lutz, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
Derrick Devon Jones appeals from an order denying his petition to vacate a restitution fine of $400 imposed under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).[1] We affirm.
On May 8, 2002, Jones pleaded guilty to one count of the sale of marijuana. The imposition of sentence was suspended and he was placed on probation. Jones was found in violation of probation and, on February 21, 2003, he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years. The court also imposed a restitution fine of $400 pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b). The court imposed but stayed a parole revocation restitution fine of $400 under section 1202.45.
Jones filed a petition in the superior court to vacate the restitution fine assessed under section 1202.4, subdivision (b). Jones relied on Assembly Bill No. 1869 as authority for his petition. The court denied the petition, and Jones filed a timely appeal from that order.
Appointed counsel for Jones filed a brief under People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, stating that she determined there were no arguable issues to support Jones’s appeal and that she had notified Jones thereof. This court also notified Jones on February 2, 2022, that a brief stating no issues had been filed in his appeal and that he could submit a supplemental brief. We have not received such a brief from Jones.
Assembly Bill No. 1869 (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 62), amended by Assembly Bill No. 177 (Stats. 2020, ch. 257, § 35) added section 1465.9, which repealed and made unenforceable a range of court-imposed costs.[2] It had no effect on restitution fines imposed under section 1202.4, subdivision (b).
We have examined the record and have found no arguable issues. We are further satisfied that Jones’s attorney has complied with the responsibilities of counsel.[3]
DISPOSITION
The order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EDMON, P. J.
We concur:
LAVIN, J.
KIM, J.*
[1] All further undesignated references are to the Penal Code.
[2] “The balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to Section 987.4, subdivision (a) of Section 987.5, Sections 987.8, 1203, 1203.1e, 1203.016, 1203.018, 1203.1b, 1208.2, 1210.15, 1463.07, 3010.8, 4024.2, and 6266, as those sections read on June 30, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” (§ 1465.9, subd. (a).)
[3] Our Supreme Court is currently considering what procedures appointed counsel and the Courts of Appeal should follow when counsel determines that an appeal from an order denying postconviction relief lacks arguable merit. (People v. Delgadillo, review granted Feb. 17, 2021, S266305.)
* Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.
