P. v. Mendoza
Filed 3/30/06 P. v. Mendoza CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RAUL MENDOZA Defendant and Appellant. | B181898 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. NA054978) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Joan Comparet-Cassani, Judge. Affirmed.
Jeffrey S. Kross, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels, Michael R. Johnsen and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Raul Mendoza appeals from judgment entered following a negotiated plea where he pled no contest to the second degree murder of his two-year old daughter (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)). Charges of assault on a child causing death (Pen. Code, § 273ab) and torture (Pen. Code, § 206) were dismissed. He was sentenced to prison for 15 years to life and ordered to pay a restitution fine of $10,000. He contends the fine should be reduced to the statutory minimum of $200 because the court did not properly advise him of the possible range of this fine and because the court did not advise him he had the right to withdraw his plea. For reasons explained in the opinion, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY
On February 18, 2005, appellant pled no contest to second degree murder. He waived his constitutional rights and was advised regarding the immigration consequences of his plea, the consequences of violating parole, that he was pleading to a strike and that as charged he faced a sentence of 50 years.
At the time of sentencing, appellant requested that the court find him indigent for purposes of the restitution fine and not impose $10,000 as the fine. In response, the court stated it had â€
