Opinion
A157082
09-30-2019
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. MATHEW RAY CORE, 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Solano County Super. Ct. No. VCR232116)
Following defendant's plea of no contest to felon in possession of a firearm, pursuant to the plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to 16 months in state prison. The court also imposed a $300 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1). Defendant contends the trial court should have granted his ex parte motion to have the $300 restitution fine converted to custody time to run concurrent to his state prison sentence. We affirm.
All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
BACKGROUND
We are unable to summarize the facts of the underlying crimes because no preliminary hearing or trial occurred, and neither party wanted a probation report. --------
The Solano County District Attorney charged defendant in a complaint with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) and one count of possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)). The complaint further alleged defendant suffered five prison priors. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).)
Pursuant to a plea bargain, defendant pleaded no contest to felon in possession of a firearm for an agreed upon sentence of low term, 16 months in state prison and dismissal of "PRCS" in another case. As part of the plea agreement, the prosecutor dismissed the possession of a controlled substance with a firearm charge and the state prison priors. That same day, the court sentenced defendant to 16 months in state prison, and as relevant to this appeal, under section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), imposed a mandatory restitution fine of $300.
Several months later, defendant filed an ex parte motion pursuant to section 1205, subdivision (a), requesting the court convert the restitution fine to days of imprisonment to run concurrently with his existing sentence. The trial court expeditiously issued an order denying the motion.
Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal from the order denying his "Ex Parte Motion for the Disposition of Fines."
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, counsel was appointed to represent him. Counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, setting forth a statement of the case, and requesting this court conduct an independent review of the record. Counsel has notified defendant he can file a supplemental brief with the court. No supplemental brief has been received. Pursuant to People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently examined the record, regarding the court's order denying defendant's ex parte motion to have the $300 restitution fine converted to custody time, to see if any arguable issue is present. We have found none.
Defendant's claim is utterly devoid of merit, as section 1205, subdivision (a) is not meant to apply when a defendant is sentenced to a term in state prison. (See § 1205, subd. (f) ["This section shall not apply to restitution fines and restitution orders."].)
Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
DISPOSTION
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
/s/_________
Margulies, J. We concur: /s/_________
Humes, P. J. /s/_________
Banke, J.