Opinion
C100198
08-02-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. EDWARD EMMANUEL REID, Defendant and Appellant.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. 90135, 92776
RENNER, J.
Defendant Edward Emmanuel Reid appeals from the trial court's denial of two motions asking the court to convert fines imposed in 1989 and 1990 to concurrent prison sentences. His appointed counsel filed a brief under People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) asking us to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. This court notified defendant he had 30 days to file a supplemental brief asserting arguments he wanted us to consider, and defendant filed such a brief raising numerous contentions.
Having considered defendant's supplemental brief in accordance with Delgadillo, we will affirm the trial court's order denying the motions.
I. BACKGROUND
In June 1989, defendant pled guilty in case No. 90135 to six counts of second degree robbery. As part of the sentence, the trial court ordered defendant to pay a restitution fine of $1,578. In January 1990, defendant pled guilty in case No. 92776 to assault with a deadly weapon. The trial court ordered defendant to pay another restitution fine of $200.
In August 2023, defendant filed two motions asking the trial court to convert each of the restitution fines to a concurrent prison sentence in the respective case, pursuant to Penal Code section 1205, subdivision (a). The trial court denied both motions, reasoning that it lacked jurisdiction to modify the fines imposed after a defendant had begun serving the sentence, especially given that defendant's cases had long been final. The court also noted that, even if it had jurisdiction, Penal Code section 1205 explicitly does not apply to restitution fines.
Defendant timely appealed from the trial court's decision.
II. DISCUSSION
Where, as here, the defendant has been notified that his appeal may be dismissed pursuant to Delgadillo and he files a supplemental brief raising various issues he wants considered, we evaluate the specific arguments presented but need not independently review the record. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at pp. 228-232.)
A. Government Code Section 6111
Defendant first contends that Government Code section 6111, enacted by Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) required the trial court to vacate the remaining balances of his restitution fines. Defendant is mistaken.
Undesignated statutory references are to the Government Code.
Section 6111 explicitly applies to only "court-imposed costs pursuant to [s]ection 27712, subdivision (c) or (f) of [s]ection 29550, and [s]ections 29550.1, 29550.2, and 29550.3." (§ 6111, subd. (a).) Defendant's restitution fines are not "costs" and were imposed pursuant to former section 13967, not any of the sections listed in section 6111. (See Stats. 1977, ch. 1123, § 4; Stats. 1992, ch. 682, § 4; Pen. Code, § 2085.5 [describing former § 13967]; cf. Stats. 1985, ch. 1485, § 1 [amending former § 27712, which required defendants to "pay all or a portion of the cost of (court appointed) legal assistance"]; Stats. 1991, ch. 331, § 4 [amending former § 29550 to permit collection of criminal justice administration fee and require collection of administrative screening fee and citation processing fee]; Stats. 1991, ch. 331, § 5 [adding former § 29550.1 to permit collection of criminal justice administration fee]; Stats. 1992, ch. 696, § 20 [adding former § 29550.2 to permit collection of additional criminal justice administration fees].) Accordingly, section 6111 has no effect on defendant's restitution fees.
B. Ability to Pay Hearing
Defendant next contends he should have been granted an ability to pay hearing in his two cases pursuant to Penal Code section 987.8. Defendant admits he did not raise this issue in the trial court, either in the original cases or in the motions at issue in this appeal, but he claims ineffective assistance of counsel saves this issue from forfeiture. Defendant represented himself in filing the two motions at issue in this appeal, so he could not have received ineffective assistance of counsel. If he wishes to allege ineffective assistance of counsel in the two cases whose judgments are long final, he must do so by petitioning for a writ of habeas corpus. (See 6 Witkin, Cal. Criminal Law (4th ed. 2023) Criminal Writs, § 10 ["A habeas corpus petition extends far beyond the record on appeal, while an appeal is limited to the four corners of the underlying record"].)
In any event, the hearing provided by former Penal Code section 987.8 was to determine "the overall capability of the defendant to reimburse the costs, or a portion of the costs, of the legal assistance provided to him or her." (Stats. 1989, ch. 1217, § 4.) Defendant was not ordered to pay the costs of the legal assistance provided to him, so such a hearing would not have had any effect in his cases.
III. DISPOSITION
The order denying defendant's motions is affirmed.
We concur: MAURO, Acting P. J., FEINBERG, J.