Opinion
B301403
06-17-2020
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KWAN ISIAH SMITH, Defendant and Appellant.
Myra Sun, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. YA093456) APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Edmund Wilcox Clarke, Jr., Judge. Affirmed. Myra Sun, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
____________________
Defendant Kwan Isiah Smith appeals from the trial court's denial of his petition to modify his sentence. Smith's appointed counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), identifying no issues and requesting that this court review the record and determine whether any arguable issue exists on appeal. We have reviewed the record, conclude the record reveals no arguable issue on appeal, and thus affirm.
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In November 2016, Smith pleaded guilty to five counts of first degree residential robbery and five counts of home invasion robbery. He was sentenced to 12 years in state prison. Smith's counsel stipulated to the $170,000 sought by the victims in restitution, and the trial court ordered Smith to pay that amount under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (f). The trial court also imposed a restitution fine of $300 under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b).
In June 2019, Smith filed a petition to modify his sentence in the trial court. Smith contended the trial court ordered the $170,000 in victim restitution and imposed the $300 restitution fine without first determining Smith's ability to pay, in contravention of People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, and the federal and state constitutional guarantees of due process and prohibitions against excessive fines.
The trial court denied Smith's petition, finding that Smith "stipulated to the restitution judgment of $170,000. Ability to pay has no impact on victim restitution. He was assessed the minimum restitution fine. He has ample time to pay that from prison earnings."
DISCUSSION
Smith filed a timely notice of appeal. His appointed counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues on appeal and requesting that we independently review the record. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) This court advised Smith of the opportunity to file a supplemental brief. He filed none.
We have reviewed the record and find no arguable issue. Appointed counsel has fully complied with counsel's responsibilities and no arguable issue exists. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 126; Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
BENDIX, J. We concur:
ROTHSCHILD, P. J.
Judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court, assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution. --------