People v. Jones CA4/2

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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, E057705 v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF120780) AIESHA LATRICE JONES, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of 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a restitution fine of $200 and a probation revocation restitution fine, the latter of which was stayed unless probation was revoked.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 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.1 At this time the court also informed appellant that “[y]ou have to pay [a] $240 restitution fine.”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.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.