Filed 7/20/22 P. v. Hernandez CA2/4 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a).

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR

THE PEOPLE, B314998 Plaintiff and Respondent, Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. VA108396 v. ALBERTO HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, LaRonda J. McCoy, Judge. Dismissed.

Richard B. Lennon and Jill Ishida, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

In 2010, a jury convicted defendant and appellant Alberto Hernandez of two counts of attempted premeditated murder and two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. (Pen. Code, §§ 664, 187, subd. (a), 245, subd. (a)(2).) It also found gun and great bodily injury allegations true. (Pen. Code, §§ 12022.53, subds. (b)- (d), 12022.5, 12022.7.) The trial court sentenced Hernandez to 25 years to life for one count of attempted premeditated murder, a consecutive term of 25 years to life for the second attempted premeditated murder count, and imposed a 25-year gun use enhancement. The court stayed the sentences on the assault counts under Penal Code section 654. It imposed various fines and fees, including a $10,000 restitution fine imposed under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) and a $10,000 restitution fine imposed under Penal Code section 1202.45.

In 2021, Hernandez filed a motion in the trial court for sentence modification of his fines and fees. The motion was based on his asserted inability to pay, citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. He argued the imposition of the fines and fees violated his state and federal constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The trial court denied the motion because it had no jurisdiction to modify the fines and fees. Hernandez timely appealed.

Appellate counsel filed a brief identifying no issues and requesting that this court follow the procedures set forth in People v. Serrano (2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496. The court notified Hernandez he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief, but he did not do so. This court has no independent duty to review the record for reasonably arguable issues. (People v. Cole (2020) 52 Cal.App.5th 1023, 1039-1040, review granted, Oct. 14, 2020, No.

S264278.) We therefore dismiss Hernandez’s appeal as abandoned. (Ibid.)

DISPOSITION The appeal is dismissed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

CURREY, J.

We concur:

MANELLA, P.J.

WILLHITE, J.