Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC618187
Mihara, J.
Pursuant to a negotiated agreement, defendant Teddy Lawrence Dreher pleaded guilty to vehicle theft with a prior conviction (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a); Pen. Code, § 666.5), reckless driving while fleeing a police officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.2, subd. (a)), hit and run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)), and resisting arrest (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)). Defendant also admitted that he had served seven prior prison terms. The trial court sentenced defendant to the stipulated prison term of five years. On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erred in imposing a $2,000 restitution fund fine. We affirm the judgment.
Defendant has also filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus, which we have considered with this appeal. We dispose of his habeas petition by separate order.
I. Statement of Facts
On January 22, 2006, defendant stole a vehicle. When Officer Josh Singleton attempted to stop defendant for failing to signal his intent to turn into a parking lot, defendant led the officer on a high-speed chase. After defendant collided with another vehicle, he fled on foot. Singleton followed and eventually arrested defendant. Defendant explained that he fled because he was on parole.
II. Discussion
Relying on People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013 (Walker), defendant contends in his opening brief that the restitution fine of $2,000 must be reduced to $200 under the due process clause of the federal Constitution, because the fine was not a term of his negotiated agreement.
However, he concedes that there was no error in his reply brief.
At the change of plea hearing, the trial court advised defendant that, among other things, he would be required to pay “a Restitution Fund fine of a minim[um] of $220, maximum 10,000.” The trial court also asked defendant if there had been “any other promises” beyond that he would be sentenced to “just the five years plus then the parole period thereafter[.]” Defendant replied, “No, sir.” At the sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $2,000 under Penal Code section 1202.4.
In People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301 (Crandell), the California Supreme Court rejected the argument presented in this case. In Crandell, at the change of plea hearing, the trial court advised the defendant that “he would ‘have to pay a restitution fund fine of a minimum of $200, a maximum of $10,000’ and ascertained that the prosecution had not made ‘any other promises’ beyond that defendant would be sentenced to 13 years in prison,” thereby distinguishing the case from Walker. (Id. at pp. 1309-1310.) The Supreme Court concluded that under “these circumstances, it is clear that when defendant entered his plea, he could not reasonably have understood his negotiated disposition to signify that no substantial restitution fine would be imposed.” (Id. at p. 1310.) Similarly, here the trial court advised defendant that the fines were a consequence of his guilty plea, and defendant indicated that no one had made any other promises to him beyond those recited in the negotiated agreement. Thus, there was no error, because defendant could not have reasonably understood that his plea precluded imposition of the $2,000 restitution fine.
III. Disposition
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J., Duffy, J.