Opinion
C042594.
10-28-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. DERRICK POINTER, Defendant and Appellant.
Defendant Derrick Pointer entered a negotiated plea of no contest to sexual intercourse with a minor under the age of 16 (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d))[] and battery (§ 242). On August 14, 1997, Judge Nancy Sweet suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for four years.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
One of the "general and specific terms and conditions" set forth in the order of probation was that "[d]efendant pay through the Courts installments process the amount determined after an evaluation and recommendation of ability to pay and for development of a payment schedule for court-ordered costs, fees, fines and restitution within five (5) days of sentencing or within five (5) days of release from custody." Defendant, however, failed to report to the Department of Revenue and Recovery for financial evaluation regarding payment of fines, restitution and civil costs. Thereafter, on September 2, 1998, Judge Gary Ransom entered an order and judgment ordering defendant to reimburse the County of Sacramento the amount of $2,374 for pre-sentence report and probation supervision costs.
On September 9, 2002, a petition was filed seeking to revoke defendants probation for: (a) failing to appear on September 7, 2000, for sentencing in another case, (b) failing to keep his probation officer advised of his whereabouts from September 7, 2000, until his arrest on July 23, 2002, and (c) false personation in violation of section 529.[] On September 17, 2002, defendant admitted violating his probation and waived time for sentencing. Judge Norbert Ehrenfreund then sentenced defendant to the low term of two years in state prison.
Petitions alleging violations of probation were also filed on January 8, 1998, June 4, 1998, and September 11, 1998. In each instance, defendant admitted violation of probation and the court reinstated probation conditioned on defendants service of additional days in jail.
Defendant purports to appeal from the September 17, 2002, judgment. Yet his sole contention on appeal is that payment of the $2,374 for pre-sentence report and probation supervision costs was improperly imposed as a condition of his probation.
The 1997 order granting probation was appealable under section 1237, subdivision (a). Likewise, the 1998 order for reimbursement clearly affected defendants substantial rights, making it appealable under section 1237, subdivision (b). Defendant, however, did not appeal from the order granting probation, nor did he appeal from the order for reimbursement in the amount of $2,374.
Inasmuch as the sole issue on this appeal concerns matters relating to appealable orders from which he did not appeal, he is estopped from claiming error. (People v. Vest (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 728, 731; People v. Munoz (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 559, 563.) Appellate review in this case is restricted to the proceedings in connection with the revocation of probation and sentence. (People v. Vest, supra, 43 Cal.App.3d at p. 731.)
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
We concur: HULL, J. and ROBIE, J.