People v. Azevedo CA3

Opinion

Filed 9/2/26 P. v. Azevedo CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Lassen)

THE PEOPLE, C104000 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. v. 2024CR0090845)

JULIAN ANTONE AZEVEDO, Defendant and Appellant.

Appointed counsel for defendant Julian Antone Azevedo asked this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende).) Our review of the record indicates that the approved plea agreement provided for dismissal of count II, but that count was not dismissed at sentencing. In addition, the trial court imposed a restitution fine but not a mandatory parole revocation fine. We will modify the judgment to dismiss count II and to impose and suspend a $300 parole revocation fine, and we will affirm the judgment as modified. I In April 2020, in a state prison yard, guards saw defendant and a fellow inmate hitting the victim (who was also an inmate) in the head and upper torso. Guards eventually broke up the fight. A search of defendant revealed a flat metal weapon;

1 two additional weapons with metal points were found in the yard. The victim had stab wounds on his upper body and died from the injuries. In January 2025, defendant pleaded no contest to second degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187 -- count I)1 and admitted a prior strike allegation based on a 2012 conviction for attempted robbery (§§ 211, 664, 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Under the plea agreement, defendant was free to file a Romero2 motion and the parties agreed to dismiss a count II charge for possession of a weapon while incarcerated. Defendant did file a Romero motion, asking the trial court to dismiss the prior strike. (§ 1385.) He argued he committed the attempted robbery when he was only 16 years old, it occurred 14 years earlier, he had a traumatic childhood, and the strike would dramatically increase his sentence. A probation report detailed defendant’s criminal history, including a 2019 conviction for assault on an inmate with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 4501, subd. (b)), a 2017 conviction for vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and a 2017 conviction for second degree burglary (§ 459). The report recommended against dismissing the strike, and the People opposed such a dismissal. In June 2025, the trial court declined to dismiss the prior strike. According to the trial court, although the prior strike offense occurred years earlier when defendant was a juvenile, his criminal record indicated a lack of rehabilitation and he committed the current murder only 14 months after a strike allegation had been dismissed as part of a plea agreement pertaining to defendant’s 2019 assault on an inmate. The trial court concluded defendant did not fall outside the spirit of the three strikes law.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

2 The trial court sentenced defendant to 30 years to life in prison and it imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment did not mention the agreement to dismiss count II, nor did it mention a parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), although the abstract of judgment includes a $300 parole revocation fine. Defendant did not seek a certificate of probable cause. II Appointed counsel filed an opening brief setting forth the facts of the case and asking this court to review the record and determine whether there are any arguable issues on appeal. (Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436.) Defendant was advised by counsel of the right to file a supplemental brief within 30 days of the date of filing the opening brief. More than 30 days elapsed and we have received no communication from defendant. Our review of the record indicates that the approved plea agreement provided for dismissal of count II, but that count was not dismissed at sentencing. “ ‘When a guilty [or no contest] plea is entered in exchange for specified benefits such as the dismissal of other counts or an agreed maximum punishment, both parties, including the state, must abide by the terms of the agreement.’ ” (People v. Panizzon (1996) 13 Cal.4th 68, 80.) In addition, the trial court orally imposed a $300 restitution fine but not a $300 parole revocation fine. When the trial court imposes a sentence that includes a period of parole, and it also imposes a restitution fine, a matching suspended parole revocation fine must be imposed. (§ 1202.45, subd. (a); People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853.) Omission of a mandatory parole revocation fine is an unauthorized sentence that we can correct on appeal. (Smith, at pp. 852-853.) Having undertaken an examination of the entire record, we find no other arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.

3 DISPOSITION The judgment is modified to dismiss count II and impose a $300 parole revocation fine, which shall be suspended unless parole is revoked. (§ 1202.45.) As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the sentencing minute order to reflect this modification. However, because the abstract of judgment already reflects the $300 suspended parole revocation fine, no amendment of that document is necessary.

/S/ MAURO, Acting P. J.

We concur:

/S/ KRAUSE, J.

/S/ BOULWARE EURIE, J.