Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Humboldt County Super. Ct. No. CR025068S
Sepulveda, J.
Defendant Shawn L. Perrot appeals following denial of his postjudgment motion to modify his sentence to reduce the amount of restitution fines for alleged inability to pay. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, subd. (b), 1202.45, 1260 [all further section references are to this code].) Defendant’s appointed counsel on appeal reviewed the record of this case, did not identify any trial court errors, and asked this court for an independent review of the record to determine if any arguable issues exist for review on appeal. (Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744; People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 119; People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) Defendant was advised that he could file a supplemental brief with this court raising any issues he wished to call to our attention, and defendant did not file a brief. We have reviewed the record and, finding no errors or arguable issues for review, affirm the judgment.
I. discussion
A jury convicted defendant of multiple sex offenses and, in July 2004, the court sentenced him to 21 years in prison. When sentencing defendant, the court imposed restitution fines of $10,000 each under sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45, the latter of which was stayed. Defendant appealed and we affirmed the judgment in 2006. (People v. Perrot (May 17, 2006, A107378) [nonpub. opn.].)
In December 2009, over five years after sentence was imposed, defendant filed a motion for modification of the sentence. (§ 1260.) Defendant, in propria persona, claimed an inability to pay the restitution fines and asked that the sentence be modified to reduce the fines to $200 each, the statutory minimum. Defendant maintained that the sentencing court never explicitly considered ability to pay when imposing the fines and argued that he did not then, and does not now, have the ability to pay the fines. The trial court denied the motion and this appeal followed.
We have independently reviewed the entire record and find no errors or arguable issues for review. (Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.) Defendant’s motion to modify the sentence was properly denied. The sentencing court was not required to make express findings as to defendant’s ability to pay and, if defendant felt himself unable to pay the fines, the time to raise that issue was at sentencing. (People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729.) “Had defendant brought his argument to the court’s attention, it could have exercised its discretion and considered defendant’s ability to pay.” (Ibid.) Defendant’s failure to raise his claimed inability to pay restitution forfeits the issue. (Ibid.)
Ii. disposition
The order is affirmed.
We concur: Ruvolo, P. J., Rivera, J.