Opinion
E077490
03-21-2022
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHAWN DEMETRIUS BOYD, Defendant and Appellant.
Paul R. Krause, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. No. FWV029998 Lisa M. Rogan, Judge. Affirmed.
Paul R. Krause, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MILLER, J.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
On July 3, 2006, a jury found defendant and appellant Shawn Boyd guilty of (1) second degree murder under Penal Code section 187, subdivision (a), a lesser included offense of first degree murder, with enhancements for use of a firearm under section 12022.53, subdivision (b), discharge of a firearm under section 12022.53, subdivision (c), and discharge of a firearm causing great bodily injury or death under section 12022.53, subdivision (d); and (2) three counts of assault with a firearm under section 245, subdivision (a)(2). Defendant also admitted one strike offense under sections 667, subdivisions (c) through (e)(1), and 1170.12, subdivision (c)(1).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified
On August 31, 2006, "Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of 55 years to life, comprised of 30 years to life (15 years to life, doubled) for count 1, plus a consecutive 25 years to life for the personal use enhancement, plus six years (double the midterm of three years) on count 4 as the base term, consecutive to count 1, plus six years (double the midterm of three years) on count 5 to run concurrent, and finally, three years for the prior prison prior to be served consecutively. The charge of assault with a deadly weapon upon [the victim] alleged in count 3 was stayed pursuant to section 654. Citing section 190, subd. (e), the trial court refused to grant actual or conduct credits because it believed defendant was required to serve the full amount of his indeterminate term." (People v. Boyd (Feb. 4, 2008, E041446) (Boyd) [nonpub. opn.].)
The trial court also found that defendant was unable to reimburse the County for attorney fees, but was able to pay the booking fees in the amount of $159.72. Moreover, the court ordered defendant to pay a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4, and a $10,000 fine under section 1202.45, stayed pending successful completion of parole.
Defendant appealed. On appeal, we directed the trial court "to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that defendant receive 965 days credit for actual time served (§ 2900.5, subd. (a))," and affirmed the judgment in all other respects. (Boyd, supra, E041446.)
On June 4, 2021, defendant filed a motion in pro. per. for an ability-to-pay hearing on his restitution fine based on changed financial circumstances and for the court to strike his booking fee under Assembly Bill No. 1869. On June 10, 2021, the trial court denied defendant's motion without a hearing.
On August 2, 2021, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, and upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts, and potential arguable issues, and has requested this court to undertake a review of the entire record. Pursuant to Anders, counsel identified the following issues to assist the court in its search of the record for error:
(1) "Whether Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), ch. 92, §§ 1-69 applies retroactively to appellant under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744-746 so as to require this Court to strike his booking fee of $159.72."
(2) "Whether Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), ch. 257, §§ 1-48 applies retroactively to appellant under In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744-746 so as to require this Court to strike any costs of collection of his restitution fine of $10,000."
(3) "Whether appellant is entitled under People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, 96, review granted November 13, 2019, No. S257844 or People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, 1173 to an ability to pay hearing as to his restitution fine based on changed financial circumstances."
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the record for potential error. We are satisfied that defendant's attorney has fully complied with the responsibilities of counsel and no arguable issue exists. (Id. at p. 126; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The denial of defendant's motion to modify his sentence is affirmed.
We concur: McKINSTER Acting P. J., CODRINGTON J.