legal news


Register | Forgot Password

P. v. Salazar

P. v. Salazar
07:06:2006

P. v. Salazar



Filed 7/5/06 P. v. Salazar CA6






NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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



SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT










THE PEOPLE,


Plaintiff and Respondent,


v.


MIGUEL SEBASTIAN SALAZAR,


Defendant and Appellant.



H029149


(Santa Clara County


Super. Ct. No. CC471498)



Defendant Miguel Sebastian Salazar appeals a judgment following the trial court's imposition of a restitution fine in the amount of $3,000. Defendant asserts the fine must be reduced to the statutory minimum of $200, because it was not part of his plea bargain.


Statement of the Case[1]


An information filed on February 4, 2005, alleged that defendant committed sexual assault on a child under the age of 14 and 10 or more years younger than himself (count 1 - Pen. Code, § 269)[2], and a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 (count 2 - § 288, subd. (a)). The information also alleged defendant inflicted great bodily injury (§ 12022.8).


Defendant pleaded no contest on June 16, 2005, and was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison. The great bodily injury enhancement was stricken, and the sentence on count 2 was stayed pursuant to section 654. The court imposed a restitution fine of $3,000, as well as a parole revocation fine in the same amount. The court also ordered restitution in the amount of $27,061.90.


Discussion


The sole issue on appeal is whether imposition of the $3,000 restitution fund fine violated defendant's plea bargain. Defendant contends that it does, and that the fine should be reduced to the statutory minimum of $200.


Defendant acknowledges that this court has rejected similar arguments in three recent cases: People v. Dickerson (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1374; People v. Knox (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1453; and People v. Sorenson (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 612. Defendant maintains that these cases should not be followed, because they conflict with the holding of People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013 (Walker).


Waiver


The People assert defendant waived the issue on appeal, because he did not object at any point to the imposition of the $3,000 restitution fine, and the trial court advised him of his right to withdraw his plea pursuant to section 1192.5.


With regard to the requirement that the court advise a defendant of the right to withdraw his plea, section 1192.5 provides: â€





Description A decision regarding sexual assault on a child under the age of 14 and 10 or more years younger than himself and a lewd and lascivious act on a child under the age of 14.
Rating
0/5 based on 0 votes.

    Home | About Us | Privacy | Subscribe
    © 2025 Fearnotlaw.com The california lawyer directory

  Copyright © 2025 Result Oriented Marketing, Inc.

attorney
scale