People v. Robinson CA2/3 ( 2023 )

Filed 1/6/23 P. v. Robinson CA2/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE, B318155
Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. NA112604)
v.
REGGIE ROBINSON,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Laura L. Laesecke, Judge. Affirmed as
modified.
Vanessa Place, under appointment by the Court of Appeal,
for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
________________________
Reggie Robinson appeals from a no-contest plea to lewd
acts on a child (Pen. Code,1 § 288, subd. (a)). His appellate
counsel filed a brief under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436(Wende), requesting that we independently review the appeal.
Our independent review discloses an error in the abstract of
judgment and in the fines and assessments imposed. We will
therefore modify the judgment to correct the errors.
The victim, Robinson’s daughter, was 15 years old when
she testified at a preliminary hearing in February 2020. She
testified that the year before she gave birth to a baby who died.
Robinson was the baby’s father.
On January 6, 2022, Robinson, per a negotiated plea,
pleaded no contest to three counts of lewd acts on a child under
the age of 14 (§ 288, subd. (a)) and stipulated that all three
counts were for separate incidents.2
On January 18, 2022, the trial court sentenced Robinson to
the high term of eight years on count 1 and to consecutive six
year terms on each of the remaining two counts, for a total of 20
years in prison. Robinson stipulated to $14,065.06 in victim
restitution. The trial court also imposed a $5,000 restitution fine
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $5,000 parole revocation fine, suspended
(§ 1202.45), a $40 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30
criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $300
sex offender fine (§ 290.3). The trial court awarded Robinson
1,024 days of custody credits.
1 All further undesignated statutory references are to the
Penal Code.
2 Robinson did not admit a factual basis for the plea, per
People v. West (1970) 3 Cal.3d 595.
2
Robinson filed a notice of appeal and requested a certificate
of probable cause, which this record does not reflect was granted
or denied. We treat the request as having been denied. (See
§ 1237.5, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b).)
Robinson’s court-appointed counsel then filed an opening
brief that raised no issues and asked this court to independently
review the record under Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.
A defendant who appeals following a plea of no contest or
guilty without a certificate of probable cause may only challenge
the denial of a motion to suppress evidence or raise grounds
arising after the entry of the plea that do not affect the plea’s
validity. (§ 1237.5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b); People v.
Johnson (2009) 47 Cal.4th 668, 676–677 & fn. 3.)
Robinson, who was representing himself in the trial court,
moved to prohibit use of DNA evidence. The record does not
show that the trial court ruled on the motion or that Robinson
pursued a ruling. No arguable issue therefore appears on this
record as to the motion.
However, there are errors in the abstract of judgment. The
trial court imposed $14,065.06 in victim restitution but the
January 18, 2022 minute order and abstract of judgment
incorrectly state the amount as $14,604.06 and as $14,605.06.
The abstract of judgment also does not reflect the $300 sex
offender fine the trial court imposed, presumably under section
290.3, subdivision (a), at the sentencing hearing. Once a section
290.3, subdivision (a), sex offender fine is imposed, the trial court
must also impose penalty assessments under section 1464,
subdivision (a), and Government Code section 76000, subdivision
(a). (People v. Stewart (2004) 117 Cal.App.4th 907, 911.) Section
1464, subdivision (a)(1), requires a penalty of $10 for every $10
3
(or part of $10) of the $300 fine, which is, here, a total penalty of
$300. Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a)(1),
requires a penalty of $7 for every $10 (or part of $10) of the $300
fine, for a total penalty here of $210. Robinson’s total mandatory
penalty assessment is $510. A trial court’s failure to impose
those penalty assessments is a jurisdictional error that may be
raised for the first time on appeal. (Stewart, at pp. 911–912.) We
therefore direct the superior court to modify the abstract of
judgment.
We have otherwise examined the record and are satisfied
no arguable issues exist and Robinson’s attorney has complied
with the responsibilities of counsel. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40
Cal.4th 106, 125–126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441–442.)
4
DISPOSITION
We modify the judgment to include $510 in section 290.3
penalty assessments under section 1464, subdivision (a), and
Government Code section 76000, subdivision (a). The trial court
is directed to modify the abstract of judgment to reflect the $300
sex offender fine, $510 penalty assessments, and $14,065.06 in
victim restitution. The trial court is directed to forward the
modified abstract of judgment to the Department of Corrections
and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed as modified.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL
REPORTS
EDMON, P. J.
We concur:
EGERTON, J.
RICHARDSON (ANNE K.), J.*
* Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, assigned
by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the
California Constitution.
5