Opinion
B301748
08-04-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ADRIAN ARMANDO CHAPARRO, Defendant and Appellant.
Scott H. Bentley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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(a). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115(a). Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. MA017771 APPEAL from a postjudgment order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Hayden Zacky, Judge. Affirmed. Scott H. Bentley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Adrian Armando Chaparro appeals from the denial of his motion to reduce a $10,000 restitution fine imposed in 2001 after he was convicted of special-circumstance murder. Our independent review of the record has revealed no arguable appellate issues, and we affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
By information dated June 15, 1999, defendant was charged with first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)) committed in the course of a kidnapping (§§ 207, 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) during which he personally discharged a firearm (§§ 12022.53, subds. (b), (c), & (d), 12022.5, subd. (a)). Defendant pled not guilty and denied the allegations.
All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
A jury found him guilty as charged, and on July 11, 2001, the trial court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole plus 25 years to life. The court also imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)). The record does not reveal whether defendant objected to the amount of the fine. Defendant appealed but did not challenge the amount of the restitution fine on appeal. This court affirmed by unpublished opinion in People v. Chaparro (May 29, 2003, B151898) (nonpub. opn.). In a subsequent appeal, this court affirmed the trial court's denial of defendant's request to reduce the $10,000 restitution fine. (People v. Chaparro, supra, B251390.)
Because the appellate record in this case does not contain the sentencing minute order, the sentencing transcript, or the first page of the abstract of judgment, we advised the parties that we intended to take judicial notice of our opinion in defendant's most recent appeal, People v. Chaparro (Apr. 24, 2014, B251390) (nonpub. opn.). (Evid. Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 459, subds. (a) & (c).) We now take judicial notice of that opinion. The facts in this paragraph are largely taken from that opinion. --------
On September 17, 2019, defendant filed a motion to stay the restitution fine under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 based on his inability to pay it. The following day, the court denied the motion by written order.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal, and we appointed counsel to represent him. On February 24, 2020, appointed counsel filed a brief in which he raised no issues and asked us to review the record independently under People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 443. The next day, we notified defendant that his attorney had failed to find any arguable issues and that he could submit by brief or letter any arguments he wished this court to consider. We have not received a response.
DISCUSSION
We have examined the entire record, and are satisfied appellate counsel has fully complied with his responsibilities and no arguable issues exist in the appeal before us. (Smith v. Robbins (2000) 528 U.S. 259, 278-284; People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at p. 443.)
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
LAVIN, J. WE CONCUR:
EDMON, P. J.
DHANIDINA, J.