P. v. Howard
Filed 7/11/06 P. v. Howard 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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. TIMOTHY HOWARD, Defendant and Appellant. | H029743 (Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. EE504589) |
Defendant Timothy Howard agreed to plead guilty to second degree burglary and possession of a fictitious check and admit certain prior-conviction allegations in return for a total sentence of no more than 32 months. The bargain, as recited by the trial court at the change-of-plea hearing, did not mention the fines required by Penal Code sections 1202.4 (restitution-fund fine) and 1202.45 (parole-revocation fine).[1] However, at the same time as the hearing, defendant signed and initialed an advisement of rights, waiver, and plea form that did mention the fines. At sentencing, the court imposed the agreed-upon prison term and also imposed a restitution-fund fine of $800 and a suspended parole-revocation fine in the same amount. On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court violated the plea bargain by imposing the fines and asks that we reduce the fines to the statutory minimum ($200). We affirm the judgment.
background
The following colloquy took place at the change-of-plea hearing.
â€
