People v. Manzilla CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD236566
- Trial judge
- Charles R. Gill
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Cynthia Aaron (author), Richard D. Huffman, Sr., Gilbert Nares
Analysis
The trial court sentenced the defendant to a two-year prison term and imposed $240 restitution and parole revocation fines following his guilty plea. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant forfeited his ex post facto challenge by failing to object at trial and that the fines were within the statutory range.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of $240 restitution and parole revocation fines“Manzilla did not object to the fines in the court below and has thus forfeited his right to do so on appeal. (People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218.)” | unclear | error | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203 — Failure to object to a fine at trial forfeits the right to challenge it on appeal.
- relied: People v. Burnett (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 257 — When the record is silent on the court's reasons for imposing a fine, it is presumed the court properly exercised its discretion.
- relied: People v. Kramis (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 346 — Section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) was amended to increase the minimum restitution fine to $240 effective January 1, 2012.
The appellate opinion: sound — sound
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, after Manzilla pled guilty to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury with a gang allegation, struck the gang enhancement, imposed the lower two-year term, and set the restitution fine (Pen. Code § 1202.4) and parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) at $240 each. On appeal Manzilla argued the ex post facto clause required reduction of both fines to $200, the statutory minimum when the offense was committed; the Court of Appeal held the claim forfeited for lack of objection, found the fines within the authorized range under both the former and amended statutes, presumed the trial court properly exercised its discretion on a silent record, and affirmed.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and matching $240 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) at sentencing“The $240 fines were within the statutorily authorized range, both at the time of the offense and at the time of sentencing.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court A $240 fine fell within the $200–$10,000 range of former section 1202.4(b)(1) in effect at the time of the September 2011 offense, so the sentence was not unauthorized and no ex post facto increase in punishment is shown on the face of the record. Because the claim concerns a discretionary sentencing choice within the lawful range, failure to object in the trial court forfeits it (Garcia), and on a silent record the appellate court properly presumes the sentencing court knew and applied the correct law (Burnett). Manzilla's argument rests on speculation that the court mechanically applied the amended minimum; the coincidence of the amount with the new minimum is suggestive but does not affirmatively rebut the presumption of regularity, so the court's conclusion is supported by the authorities it cites. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Kramis (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 346 — Describes the January 1, 2012 amendment to section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) raising the minimum restitution fine from $200 to $240 (then $280 and $300 in later years).
- relied: People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203 — A defendant who fails to object to a restitution fine in the trial court forfeits the challenge on appeal.
- relied: People v. Burnett (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 257 — On a silent record, the reviewing court presumes the trial court was aware of and properly exercised its sentencing discretion.
The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion answers the only contention raised with the correct framework: the fines were lawful under the statute in effect at the time of the offense, so there was no unauthorized sentence exempt from forfeiture, and the presumption of regularity defeats a claim grounded solely on speculation about the court's unstated reasoning. It is brief and does not expressly discuss whether a fine set exactly at the new statutory minimum raises an inference the court applied the wrong statute, but the forfeiture holding independently supports the result.
Opinion
Filed 10/9/13 P. v. Manzilla CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN 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.
COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THE PEOPLE, D063049
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD236566)
DANIEL MANZILLA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Charles R.
Gill, Judge. Affirmed.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General and Charles C. Ragland, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. In September 2011, Daniel Manzilla committed an assault. In September 2012, he pled guilty to assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code,1 former § 245, subd. (a)(1)) for the benefit of a criminal street gang (§ 186.22, subd.
(b)(1)). In October 2012, the court struck the gang enhancement and sentenced Manzilla to the lower two-year prison term. Manzilla appeals, contending that the ex post facto clause requires that the restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and the parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) each be reduced from $240 to $200.
Effective January 1, 2012, section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) was amended to state: "The restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, but shall not be less than two hundred forty dollars ($240) starting on January 1, 2012, two hundred eighty dollars ($280) starting on January 1, 2013, and three hundred dollars ($300) starting on January 1, 2014, and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000) . . . ." (People v. Kramis (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 346, 349 fn. 2.) Previously, section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) provided for a restitution fine "set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, but . . . not . . . less than [$200], and not more than [$10,000]." (§ 1202.4, former subd.
(b)(1).) The parole revocation fine must be the same amount as the restitution fine.
(§ 1202.45.)
1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 Manzilla speculates that the court intended to impose restitution and parole revocation fines in the amount of $200, the statutory minimum at the time of his offense, but mistakenly imposed the minimum amount specified in the amended version of section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), which was the statutory minimum at the time he was sentenced.
The $240 fines were within the statutorily authorized range, both at the time of the offense and at the time of sentencing. Manzilla did not object to the fines in the court below and has thus forfeited his right to do so on appeal. (People v. Garcia (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218.) Further, because the record is silent concerning the court's reasons for imposing $240 fines, we presume that the court was aware of, and properly exercised, its discretion. (People v. Burnett (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 257, 261.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
AARON, J.
WE CONCUR:
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
NARES, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Kramis No. B236892 · 2012-09-13
- People v. Garcia E048416 · 2010-06-23
- People v. Burnett C042540 · 2004-03-24