P. v. Jones

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Filed 11/15/13  P. v. Jones CA4/2

 

 

 

 

 

 

>NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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  This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115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>

> 

>FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

> 

>DIVISION TWO

 

 

 
>

THE PEOPLE,               Plaintiff and Respondent,   v.   AIESHA LATRICE JONES,               Defendant and Appellant.

E057705               (Super.Ct.No. RIF120780)               OPINION

 

            APPEAL
from the Superior Court
of href="http://www.adrservices.org/neutrals/frederick-mandabach.php">Riverside
County.  Helios (Joe)
Hernandez, Judge.  Affirmed as modified.

            Patrick
Morgan Ford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.

            Kamala
D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Peter Quon, Jr. and
Anthony Da Silva, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant and appellant Aiesha Latrice Jones
pleaded guilty to receiving stolen
property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)), and was placed on three years’
probation.  The court also imposed a
restitution fine of $200 and a probation revocation restitution fine, the
latter of which was stayed unless probation was revoked.  (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.44.)

            Some 20 months later,
in April 2010, probation was ordered revoked and a href="http://www.fearnotlaw.com/">bench warrant issued.  Shortly thereafter, a misdemeanor complaint
was filed against appellant alleging a violation of Vehicle Code sections
23152, subdivision (a), and 23222, subdivision (b), as well as another
resulting violation of probation.  When
appellant was eventually brought before the court in December 2012, she
admitted an “obey all laws” violation and the trial court imposed a felony
sentence of two years.href="#_ftn1"
name="_ftnref1" title="">^[1]  At
this time the court also informed appellant that “[y]ou have to pay [a] $240
restitution fine.”href="#_ftn2"
name="_ftnref2" title="">^[2]

DISCUSSION

            Although they do not
disagree, the parties discuss the issue as one in which the trial court
erroneously purported either to impose a second
restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), or to >alter the amount of the fine already
imposed.  Although the minute order
refers to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) (the basic restitution
fine statute), we think it more probable that the trial court’s order was more
probably intended to refer to the probation violation fine under Penal Code
section 1202.44, which had been previously stayed pending appellant’s successful
completion of probation.  As she did >not successfully complete probation, it
was that fine which became newly relevant and payable.href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3" title="">^[3]

            However, it makes no
difference to the analysis.  The People
concede that the fine was originally specified at $200 and agree that it could
not be increased.  (See >People v. Garcia (2006) 147 Cal.App.4th
913, 917.)  We too agree.

DISPOSITION

            The judgment is
modified to reflect a fine (or fines) of $200, and as so modified, is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

 

HOLLENHORST                 

                                                J.

We concur:

 

 

 

RAMIREZ                             

                                         P. J.

 

 

 

KING                                     

                                             J.