From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Hillmon

Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District.
Nov 21, 2003
C042316 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2003)

Opinion

C042316.

11-21-2003

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DERWIN LAMONT HILLMON, Defendant and Appellant.


Pursuant to a bargain, defendant Derwin Lamont Hillmon pleaded no contest to one count of unlawfully taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)) and admitted a prior strike allegation (Pen. Code, § 667, subds. (b)-(i)). He was sentenced to prison for 32 months and the trial court waived the recommended $ 200 restitution fine in light of the possibility that the victim would seek restitution.

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 of the record discloses that notwithstanding the courts having waived the restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), the abstract of judgment specifies $200 in restitution fines were imposed in accordance with Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45. In People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, the court held the Peoples failure to object to the trial courts omission of reasons for not imposing restitution fines was subject to waiver under People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331. (People v. Tillman, supra, at p. 303.) Consequently, the abstract of judgment should be corrected to show no restitution fines were imposed.

Aside from the foregoing error, our review of the entire record discloses no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

DISPOSITION

The superior court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that no fines were imposed pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, and to forward a copy thereof to the Director of the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J., SIMS, J.


Summaries of

People v. Hillmon

Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District.
Nov 21, 2003
C042316 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2003)
Case details for

People v. Hillmon

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DERWIN LAMONT HILLMON, Defendant…

Court:Court of Appeals of California, Third Appellate District.

Date published: Nov 21, 2003

Citations

C042316 (Cal. Ct. App. Nov. 21, 2003)