Opinion
E072212
03-30-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOHNNY WILLIAMS, Defendant and Appellant.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Super.Ct.No. PEF003408) OPINION APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. John D. Molloy, Judge. Affirmed. Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Defendant and appellant Johnny Williams appeals from the denial of his motion to have the outstanding balance on his restitution fine converted into days of imprisonment and ordered to run concurrently with his present prison term, pursuant to Penal Code section 1205, subdivision (a). We affirm.
All further statutory references will be to the Penal Code, unless otherwise noted. --------
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In August 2000, defendant was charged by second amended information with attempted murder (§§ 664, 187, subd. (a), count 1), assault with a firearm (§ 245, subd. (a)(2), count 2), assault with a deadly weapon (§ 245, subd. (a)(1), counts 3-5), inflicting corporal injury on a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a), count 6), and possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1), count 7). As to counts 1 and 6, the amended information alleged that he personally used a dangerous weapon (§§ 12022, subd. (b)(1), 1192.7, subd. (c)(23)), and he personally inflicted great bodily injury (GBI) (§§ 12022.7. subd. (d), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8)). As to count 2, it alleged that defendant personally used a firearm. (§§ 12022.5, subd. (a), 1192.7, subd. (c)(8).) The amended information further alleged that defendant had one prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)), served three prior prison terms (§ 667.5, subd. (b)), and had one prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (c) & (e), 1170.12, subd. (c)).
On November 7, 2000, a jury found defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of attempted voluntary manslaughter on count 1 (§§ 664, 192, subd. (a)), not guilty on count 5, and guilty on all other counts. The jury found all the enhancements to be true. A trial court found all the prior conviction enhancements true. On May 4, 2001, the court sentenced defendant to a total prison term of 26 years four months in state prison. The court also ordered him to pay a restitution fine of $5,000. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).)
On or about January 7, 2019, defendant filed, in propria persona, a document entitled, "Ex Parte Motion for the Disposition of Fines" under section 1205, subdivision (a). The motion stated that because he was an indigent state prisoner, he was unable to pay the outstanding fine of $4,888.50 imposed by the trial court. He requested the fine to be converted into days of imprisonment and run concurrent to his current prison sentence pursuant to section 1205, subdivision (a). Defendant also attached a document entitled, "Motion for Modification of Sentence Pursuant to Penal Code § 1170, § 654, Cal. Const. See 32 of Article 1, 32(a)(1)(A) Prop. 57." In this motion, defendant requested the court to resentence him because, while incarcerated, he had avoided disciplinary actions and had completed the full terms for his "primary offenses." The trial court denied the motion(s) on January 30, 2019.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal. He also filed a request for certificate of probable cause, which was denied. We affirm.
ANALYSIS
After the notice of appeal was filed, this court appointed counsel to represent defendant. 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, and identifying two potential arguable issues: (1) whether section 1205, subdivision (f), has any impact on this appeal; and (2) whether the trial court has jurisdiction to modify a proper judgment once it becomes final.
Defendant was offered an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, which he has not done.
Under People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have conducted an independent review of the record and find no arguable issues.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
McKINSTER
J. We concur: RAMIREZ
P. J. MILLER
J.