People v. Goodwin CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D065291 · 2014-12-10 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD229917, SCD233633, SCD235209
Trial judge: David M. Szumowski
Outcome: modified — Affirmed as modified.
Area: criminal
Panel: Judith D. McConnell (author), Judith L. Haller, O'Rourke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T06:28Z · confidence high

The trial court revoked Goodwin's probation in three cases and imposed restitution and probation revocation fines that exceeded the statutory maximums originally set. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment but modified it to reduce the fines to the authorized $200 amount per case.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of increased restitution fines ($960, $480, $480) and probation revocation fines ($240, $200, $200) upon revocation of probation. “Goodwin contends and the People concede the court lacked authorization to increase the restitution fines in any of the cases after revoking Goodwin's probation and sentencing him to prison.”	de novo	error (statutory interpretation)	agree with court agree with court

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — Requires independent review of the record by appellate counsel when appointed counsel finds no arguable issues.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Establishes the procedure for appointed counsel to file a brief identifying non-arguable issues and requesting independent review.
relied: People v. Perez (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 801 — A trial court lacks authority to increase restitution fines beyond the amount originally imposed at sentencing upon revocation of probation.
relied: People v. Johnson (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 284 — Supports the proposition that restitution fines cannot be increased after the initial sentencing.
relied: People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899 — Supports the limitation on increasing restitution fines post-sentencing.
relied: People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819 — Supports the limitation on increasing restitution fines post-sentencing.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion correctly identifies that the trial court exceeded its statutory authority by increasing fines beyond the original amounts set at sentencing, relying on established case law and statutory text. The court appropriately modified the judgment to correct the unauthorized amounts while affirming the rest of the judgment.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:31Z · confidence low

After Goodwin admitted violating probation in three San Diego drug cases, the trial court revoked probation, imposed a four-year prison term with concurrent two-year terms, and increased the restitution fines (to $960, $480, and $480) and probation revocation fines (to $240, $200, $200) above the $200 amounts originally imposed when probation was granted. On a Wende appeal, the Court of Appeal solicited supplemental briefing, accepted the People's concession that the increases were unauthorized, directed the abstract of judgment be modified to reflect $200 restitution and probation revocation fines in each case, and otherwise affirmed.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Increase of Penal Code section 1202.4(b) restitution fines upon revocation of probation and imposition of prison sentence “the court lacked authorization to increase the restitution fines in any of the cases after revoking”	de novo	error (law misapplied)	agree with court A restitution fine imposed when probation is granted survives revocation and remains in force; imposing a different or higher fine at the revocation sentencing is an unauthorized sentence correctable on appeal regardless of forfeiture or the defendant's wishes. Chambers, Downey, Johnson and Perez squarely so hold, and the People conceded the point.
Increase of Penal Code section 1202.44 probation revocation fines above the amounts originally imposed “the court also lacked the authorization to increase any of them.”	de novo	error (law misapplied)	agree with court Section 1202.44 requires the probation revocation fine to be in the same amount as the section 1202.4(b) restitution fine; because the restitution fines had to remain at $200, the revocation fines likewise could not exceed $200. Perez supports this and the correction follows directly from the statute.
Refusal to reinstate probation and instead impose the stayed four-year prison sentence with concurrent two-year terms “Our independent review of the record did not result in the identification of any”	abuse of discretion	correct	agree with court Counsel flagged this as a possible but not reasonably arguable issue under Anders, and the court's independent Wende review found no arguable error. Given three successive grants of probation, repeated revocations and reinstatements, and an admitted further violation, imposing the previously stayed and bargained-for sentence is well within the trial court's discretion; nothing in the opinion suggests otherwise.
Effectiveness of trial counsel at the revocation and sentencing proceedings “Goodwin has been competently represented by”	unclear	correct	agree with court Counsel identified ineffective assistance as a possible issue but the court's independent review found nothing reasonably arguable. The opinion recites no facts bearing on trial counsel's performance, so there is no basis to question the court's conclusion on this record.

Authorities

relied: People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 — When appointed appellate counsel finds no arguable issues, the Court of Appeal must independently review the entire record for error.
relied: Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 — Appointed counsel who finds no meritorious issues may file a brief referring to anything in the record that might arguably support the appeal.
relied: People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819 — A restitution fine imposed at the grant of probation survives revocation of probation; a second or increased restitution fine imposed at the revocation sentencing is unauthorized and must be stricken.
relied: People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899 — The trial court lacks authority to impose a higher restitution fine upon revocation of probation than the one imposed when probation was granted.
relied: People v. Johnson (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 284 — Restitution fine imposed at original sentencing remains in effect after probation revocation and cannot be increased at the revocation sentencing.
relied: People v. Perez (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 801 — Restitution and probation revocation fines imposed when probation is granted survive revocation; the probation revocation fine must match the restitution fine and increasing either upon revocation is unauthorized.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The court correctly identified and corrected an unauthorized sentence that counsel had declined to raise, applying settled Court of Appeal authority and the plain text of section 1202.44, and its Wende review of the remaining issues is unremarkable. However, the court's own supplemental-briefing order asked about parole revocation fines under section 1202.45, yet the opinion and disposition are silent on whether such fines were imposed or in what amount, leaving a loose end.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

record incomplete

Opinion

Filed 12/10/14 P. v. Goodwin 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, D065291

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD229917, SCD233633, SCD235209 ) GLENNIS HINTON GOODWIN, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, David M.

Szumowski, Judge. Affirmed as modified.

Patrick E. DuNah and Leslie A. Rose, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.

INTRODUCTION

Glennis Hinton Goodwin appeals from a judgment following revocation of probation in three cases: SCD229917, SCD233633, and SCD235209. Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief requesting we independently review the record for error.

(See People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, 441-442.) We modify the judgment to correct unauthorized increases in restitution and probation revocation fines. In all other respects, we affirm the judgment.

BACKGROUND

In case number SCD229917, Goodwin pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in exchange for entry into a drug treatment program. Goodwin's sentence included a $200 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $200 probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44).

Approximately seven months later, in case number SCD233633, Goodwin pleaded guilty to possessing cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a)) in exchange for dismissal of other charges and enhancements and entry into a drug treatment program.

Goodwin's sentence included a $200 restitution fine and a $200 probation revocation fine.

The court also revoked, reinstated and continued Goodwin's probation in case number SCD229917 on the same terms and conditions.

Approximately four months later, in case number SCD235209, Goodwin pleaded guilty to selling cocaine base (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a)) in exchange for a four-year stayed state prison sentence, a grant of probation with a term of 365 days in jail, and a waiver of conduct credits. Goodwin's sentence included a $200 restitution fine and a $200 probation revocation fine. The court also revoked and reinstated Goodwin's probation in case numbers SCD229917 and SCD233633 and sentenced him to 365 days in jail to run concurrently with his sentence in case number SCD235209.

2 Approximately 15 months later, Goodwin admitted violating his probation in all three cases. The court revoked Goodwin's probation, imposed the four-year stayed sentence in case number SCD235209, and imposed concurrent two-year sentences in case numbers SCD229917 and SCD233633. The court also imposed restitution fines of $960 for case number SCD235209, $480 for case number SCD233633, and $480 for case number SCD229917 and probation revocation fines of $240 for case number SCD235209, $200 for case number SCD233633, and $200 for case number SCD229917.

DISCUSSION

Appointed appellate counsel filed a brief summarizing the facts and proceedings below. Counsel presented no argument for reversal, but asked this court to review the record for error as mandated by People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pages 441-442.

Pursuant to Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, 744, counsel identified two possible, but not reasonably arguable issues: (1) whether the court abused its discretion by failing to reinstate Goodwin's probation; and (2) whether Goodwin's trial counsel provided him with effective assistance. Counsel identified a third issue, whether the court erred in increasing the amount of restitution fines imposed in case numbers SCD229917 and SCD233633; however, counsel indicated Goodwin did not want this issue raised on appeal.

We granted Goodwin permission to file a brief on his own behalf, which he did not do. Concerned the increased restitution fines might be unauthorized, we requested supplemental letter briefs from the parties "addressing whether the trial court correctly 3 imposed restitution, probation revocation, and parole revocation fines in each of the [three] cases and, if not, whether and how this court should correct any error."

In their respective briefs, Goodwin contends and the People concede the court lacked authorization to increase the restitution fines in any of the cases after revoking Goodwin's probation and sentencing him to prison. (People v. Perez (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 801, 805; People v. Johnson (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 284, 307; People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 921; People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 821-823.) As the probation revocation fines must be in the same amount as the restitution fines, the court also lacked the authorization to increase any of them.

(Pen. Code, § 1202.44; People v. Perez, supra, at p. 805.) We will, therefore, direct the court to modify the abstract of judgment to reduce the restitution and probation revocation fines to authorized amounts.

Our independent review of the record did not result in the identification of any other reasonably arguable issues.1 Goodwin has been competently represented by counsel in this appeal.

1 To the extent the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act (Prop. 47, as approved by voters, Gen. Elec. (Nov. 4, 2014)) applies to any of Goodwin's convictions, Goodwin may petition the trial court for resentencing or a reduction of the charge to a misdemeanor. (Pen. Code, § 1170.18 (a), (f).) 4 DISPOSITION The court is directed to modify the abstract of judgment to reflect restitution and probation revocation fines of $200 each in case numbers SCD229917, SCD233633, and SCD235209. The court is further directed to forward a certified copy of the modified abstract of judgment to the appropriate corrections authorities. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.

MCCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

HALLER, J.

O'ROURKE, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. Perez No. D056301; No. D056442 · 2011-05-19
People v. Johnson D041023 · 2004-01-12
People v. Downey B136294 · 2000-08-02
People v. Chambers No. C027662 · 1998-07-23
People v. Wende Crim. 20851 · 1979-10-12