Opinion
C088698
03-25-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. AARON SHAWN PHIPPS, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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. 18F2732)
On May 17, 2018, the trial court placed defendant Aaron Shawn Phipps on three years' probation and ordered that he pay certain authorized fines, fees, and assessments including court operations assessments (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), criminal conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)). The court suspended imposition of any prison sentence for three years. Defendant did not appeal this order, which operates as a judgment for purposes of appeal. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (a).) This judgment became final 60 days later in July. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.308(a); see, e.g., People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1094 ["the defendant must file the notice of appeal within 60 days after rendition of judgment"].)
Thereafter, on December 31, 2018, defendant timely appealed a postjudgment victim restitution order entered December 10, 2018. This appeal is presently before us. However, rather than challenging that postjudgment order, defendant asks that we review the propriety of fines, fees, and assessments imposed by the trial court at sentencing in light of People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. He is precluded from attacking that final judgment in this postjudgment appeal. (See, e.g, People v. Howerton (1953) 40 Cal.2d 217, 218-220 [defendant's failure to appeal his judgment precluded his insufficient evidence challenge on appeal from a postjudgment order committing him to prison]; People v. Thomas (1959) 52 Cal.2d 521, 527 [no appeal may be made from a motion to vacate the judgment on grounds that could have been raised in an appeal from the judgment].) This is not an instance where the sentence is unauthorized and thus may be corrected at any time. (Cf. People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200, 1205-1207 [defendant's motion to modify an authorized restitution fine was not an exception to the "unauthorized-sentence exception"].) Defendant must challenge the propriety of authorized fines, fees, and assessments in an appeal from the judgment imposing them. (Id. at pp. 1207-1208 [dismissing appeal from postjudgment order denying motion to modify defendant's authorized restitution fine brought on the grounds of inability to pay].)
Accordingly, we will affirm the postjudgment restitution order.
DISPOSITION
The postjudgment order is affirmed.
/S/_________
RENNER, J.
We concur:
/S/_________
RAYE, P. J.
/S/_________
MURRAY, J.