Filed 5/30/17 P. v. Pool CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
(San Joaquin)
----




THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

TIMON JOEL POOL,

Defendant and Appellant.


C083439

(Super. Ct. Nos. LF009380A, LODCRFE20060000616)


Appointed counsel for defendant Timon Joel Pool has filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and asks this court to review the record to determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) After reviewing the entire record, we affirm the judgment.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
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.)
After a jury found defendant guilty of the first degree murder of his girlfriend and second degree murder of her unborn fetus, the trial court sentenced defendant to serve life in prison without possibility of parole. (People v. Pool (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 904, 905.) The trial court also ordered defendant to pay $7,500 in direct victim restitution and a $200 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4. Defendant filed a motion in the trial court seeking to vacate the restitution order claiming both were unlawful under the holding in People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, that a parole revocation fine was unlawful where the sentence is life without possibility of parole. The People opposed the motion. The trial court denied defendant’s motion. After the trial court’s denial, defendant filed multiple replies to the People’s opposition and then a motion to reconsider his restitution motion. The trial court denied the motion to reconsider.
DISCUSSION
We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts and procedural history of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant filed a supplemental brief, reiterating his trial court claim that the restitution fine and direct victim restitution were unauthorized under Oganesyan. Oganesyan applies to the imposition of a parole revocation fine under Penal Code, § 1202.45. The record on appeal does not indicate the trial court imposed a parole revocation fine, rather, it imposed a restitution fine and direct victim restitution. Having undertaken an examination of the entire record pursuant to Wende, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant. Consequently, we affirm the judgment. (Id. at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.



/s/
HOCH, J.



We concur:



/s/
NICHOLSON, Acting P. J.



/s/
MAURO, J.