From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Godinez

Court of Appeal of California
Jul 30, 2008
No. C057470 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2008)

Opinion

C057470

7-30-2008

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE GERARDO GODINEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

Not to be Published


In August 2005, a West Sacramento police officer followed a van to an apartment complex where the driver got out and walked away. A registration check revealed that the vans license plates had been issued to a 1997 Dodge. Because the van appeared to be newer than that, the officer approached and observed that the steering column had been cracked and wrapped with cloth. The officer obtained the vehicle identification number and discovered that the van was a stolen 2001 Dodge. The officer drove around the block and observed the driver, defendant, less than a block from the stolen van. Defendant was arrested. The owner of the license plates informed the officer that they had been stolen in August 2005. The owner of the van told the officer that it, too, had been stolen.

In October 2005, a West Sacramento police officer observed a male riding a bicycle at night without a headlight and on the wrong side of the street. The officer stopped the cyclist, defendant, and conducted a pat search of his outer clothing that revealed a methamphetamine smoking pipe. After seizing the pipe, the officer conducted a further search of defendants person and found a clear plastic baggie containing a substance he suspected to be methamphetamine. The substance and baggie weighed 0.6 grams. The officer performed screening tests that indicated the presence of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a).)

Because the matter was resolved without trial, our statement of facts in case nos. 057076 and 056715 is taken from the transcript of the preliminary hearing.

In January 2006, in case No. 057076, defendant pleaded no contest to vehicle theft. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) In case No. 056715, he pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine. In exchange, related counts in both cases were dismissed.

In case No. 050706, defendant was placed on probation. He was ordered to make restitution to the victim and to pay a fine plus a penalty assessment and a processing fee, a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4; further undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code) plus a $20 processing fee, and a $200 restitution fine stayed unless probation is revoked (§ 1202.44). In case No. 056715, he was placed on Proposition 36 probation and ordered to pay a fine plus a penalty assessment and a processing fee, a $50 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5, subd. (a)) plus a $120 penalty assessment, a drug program fee not to exceed $150 (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7) plus $360 in penalty assessments, a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), and a $200 restitution fine suspended unless probation is revoked (§ 1202.44).

In May 2007, in a Yolo County police drug operation, a confidential informant met with defendant to complete a purchase of one ounce of methamphetamine that he had obtained from his codefendants. When agents attempted to arrest defendant, he fled on foot and was apprehended a short time later. A bag containing 28 grams of methamphetamine was found nearby. The codefendants were detained. Cash and additional methamphetamine were found in their car.

Because the matter was resolved without trial, our statement of facts is taken from the probation officers report.

In October 2007, in case No. 072594, defendant pleaded no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378) and conspiracy to commit a felony (§ 182, subd. (a)(1)). He admitted that his plea constituted a violation of his probation in case Nos. 056715 and 057076. In exchange, a related count was dismissed.

Defendant was sentenced to state prison for two years eight months, consisting of two concurrent low terms of 16 months in case No. 072594 plus 8 months consecutive in case No. 057076 and 8 months consecutive in case No. 056715. In case No. 072594, he was awarded 127 days of custody credit and 62 days of conduct credit. In case No. 057076, he was awarded 49 days of custody credit and 24 days of conduct credit. The trial court orally "reminded" defendant that he owed a $200 restitution fine.

Defendant was not in custody on case No. 056715.

We appointed counsel to represent defendant on appeal. Counsel filed an opening brief that sets forth the facts of the case and requests this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing of the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed, and we received no communication from defendant.

Our review reveals some minor errors on the abstract of judgment. The trial court imposed $200 restitution fines in case Nos. 057076 and 056715 when probation was granted and imposed a $200 restitution fine in case No. 072594 at sentencing. None of these fines has been stayed, and the abstract should not so indicate. Instead, the abstract should state that $200 restitution fines are imposed in cases "A", "B," and "C."

The abstract should further state, on a separate line, that $200 probation revocation fines (§ 1202.44) had previously been stayed in case Nos. 057076 and 056715 and are now imposed.

The abstract should also indicate that the drug program fee was imposed in case No. 056715.

Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to correct the abstract of judgment to show a $200 restitution fine in each case, a $200 probation revocation restitution fine in case Nos. 057076 and 056715, and a drug program fee in case No. 056715. The court shall forward a certified copy of the corrected abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

We concur:

NICHOLSON, J.

HULL, J.


Summaries of

People v. Godinez

Court of Appeal of California
Jul 30, 2008
No. C057470 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2008)
Case details for

People v. Godinez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. JOSE GERARDO GODINEZ, Defendant…

Court:Court of Appeal of California

Date published: Jul 30, 2008

Citations

No. C057470 (Cal. Ct. App. Jul. 30, 2008)