Opinion
A155693
09-30-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. RANDOLPH MATTHEW VALLADAREZ, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Mendocino County Super. Ct. No. SCUK-CRCR-18-95427)
After defendant Randolph Matthew Valladarez pleaded no contest to being a felon in possession of ammunition (Pen. Code, § 30305, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted that the offense occurred while he was on bail in another case, the trial court suspended sentence and placed him on 36 months' formal probation with various terms and conditions, including 60 days in county jail. Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), Valladarez argues on appeal that the trial court's imposition of certain mandatory fines and fees at sentencing without holding a hearing on his ability to pay violated his due process rights. Concluding that Valladarez has failed to comply with section 1237.2, we dismiss the appeal.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
DISCUSSION
Pursuant to section 1237.2, "[a]n appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs unless the defendant first presents the claim in the trial court at the time of sentencing, or if the error is not discovered until after sentencing, the defendant first makes a motion for correction in the trial court, which may be made informally in writing. The trial court retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal has been filed to correct any error in the imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs upon the defendant's request for correction. This section only applies in cases where the erroneous imposition or calculation of fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs are the sole issue on appeal."
The instant appeal is solely concerned with whether certain fines, fees, and assessments were improperly imposed under Dueñas. There is no indication that Valladarez challenged the imposition of these charges at sentencing. Nor has Valladarez unsuccessfully moved the trial court to correct his sentence on these grounds. Thus, by its plain terms, section 1237.2 appears to preclude our consideration of this appeal.
Because section 1237.2 had not been raised by the parties, we requested supplemental briefing to address whether this appeal is cognizable under section 1237.2. Valladarez urges us to find section 1237.2 inapplicable because he is not arguing that the trial court was without authority to impose the fines and fees or somehow miscalculated them. Rather, he is merely claiming that the trial court should have first considered his ability to pay. Several courts have rejected this argument, concluding that the "plain language of the statute 'does not limit [its] reach only to situations where the fee simply did not apply at all or was a result of mathematical error.' " (People v. Hall (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 502, 504 [dismissing fee appeal under Dueñas for failure to comply with section 1237.2]; see People v. Alexander (2016) 6 Cal.App.5th 798, 801 [appeal involving imposition of a higher than bargained for restitution fine barred by section 1237.2].) We agree with this precedent and conclude that section 1237.2 by its terms applies broadly to any asserted error in the imposition or calculation of fees.
Valladarez's appellate attorney also informs us that trial counsel has now made a motion to correct sentence in the trial court on Dueñas grounds and is currently briefing the matter before that court. She suggests that we could stay this appeal pending the trial court's resolution of the issue. We decline to do so. Both section 1237.2 and section 1237.1—a related statutory provision requiring a similar process for the correction of presentence custody credits—were enacted to preserve judicial resources by avoiding, where possible, utilization of the formal appellate process. (People v. Jordan (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 364, 369-370.) Should Valladarez be successful in the trial court, no further action will be required at the appellate level. If his motion to correct sentence is ultimately denied, that order would, itself, be separately appealable. (Jordan, at p. 368 [denial of motion to correct sentence is appealable as a postjudgment order affecting a defendant's substantial rights].) In the interim, "[p]ursuing an appeal, while also pursuing a motion to correct sentence, accomplishes the opposite goal the Legislature was trying to accomplish by enacting sections 1237.1 and 1237.2." (Jordan, at pp. 370-371.)
III. DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
/s/_________
SANCHEZ, J. WE CONCUR: /s/_________
Humes, P. J. /s/_________
Margulies, J.