People v. Shaba CA4/1
- Proceeding
- appeal from a judgment
- Trial court
- Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD232237, SCD233745
- Trial judge
- Jeffrey F. Fraser
- Outcome
- affirmed — Affirmed.
- Area
- criminal
- Panel
- Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Joan K. Irion
Analysis
The trial court imposed restitution fines of $1,540 and $3,640 on the defendant, who did not object to the amounts at sentencing. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, holding that the defendant forfeited his ex post facto challenge by failing to raise a timely objection in the trial court.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of restitution fines of $1,540 and $3,640“The fines imposed fall well within the jurisdiction of the court. That they may be divisible by $280, does not demonstrate the trial court's lack of knowledge of the applicable law.” | de novo | correct | agree with court agree with court |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 — Sentencing issues not raised in the trial court are generally forfeited on appeal.
- relied: People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 — Sentencing issues not raised in the trial court are generally forfeited on appeal.
- relied: People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798 — In the absence of a record demonstrating the contrary, the trial court is presumed to have been aware of the law and properly applied it.
- relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — In the absence of a record demonstrating the contrary, the trial court is presumed to have been aware of the law and properly applied it.
The appellate opinion: sound — The court correctly applied the forfeiture rule, noting that the defendant failed to object to the fines at sentencing, which deprived the trial court of the opportunity to correct any error and left the appellate court without a record for meaningful review. The court also correctly noted that the fines were within the statutory maximum, meaning the trial court had jurisdiction to impose them regardless of the specific calculation method used.
How this analysis was made · dispute it
unusual dispositionThe trial court, sentencing Shaba on guilty pleas in two robbery cases to a stipulated aggregate term of 18 years four months, imposed restitution fines of $1,540 and $3,640 under Penal Code section 1202.4 without objection. The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding the ex post facto challenge to the fine amounts forfeited for lack of objection and, alternatively, that the fines were within the statutory range and nothing in the record showed the trial court misunderstood the applicable minimum.
| Ruling reviewed | Standard | The court | The model |
|---|---|---|---|
Imposition of restitution fines of $1,540 (SCD232237) and $3,640 (SCD233745) under section 1202.4, challenged for the first time on appeal as based on an erroneous $280 minimum in violation of ex post facto principles“By failing to raise the issue, the appellant has deprived the trial court of the opportunity to correct any possible error, and has deprived this court of a record which would permit meaningful review. The issue has been forfeited.” | de novo | correct | agree with court Under People v. Scott, sentencing claims involving discretionary choices not raised below are forfeited; the 'unauthorized sentence' exception applies only to sentences that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance, and fines of $1,540 and $3,640 fall within the $200-$10,000 range under both the former and current versions of section 1202.4. The court correctly distinguished a fine that may have been calculated from a mistaken starting point (a discretionary error correctable on objection) from one outside the court's jurisdiction. The analysis is consistent with the California Supreme Court's treatment of unobjected-to restitution fines. |
Amount of the restitution fines as an exercise of sentencing discretion under section 1202.4, subdivision (b) (alternative merits holding)“Nothing in the statute, nor in case law presented to us compels a trial court to calculate a fine using a particular base amount. The court had the jurisdiction under the statute to impose fines of up to $10,000 in this case.” | abuse of discretion | correct | agree with court The court properly applied the presumption that a trial court knows and applies the law absent a contrary record showing (Braxton; Denham). The fines are within the discretionary range that existed at the time of the offenses, so even if the trial court used $280 as a multiplier, the resulting fine was one it could have imposed under the former statute, and no ex post facto increase in punishment is shown on this record. One minor imprecision: $1,540 is not an integer multiple of $280 (though $3,640 is exactly 13 x $280, matching the 13-year stipulated term in that case), so the inference of a $280 base is weaker for one fine than the opinion's phrasing suggests; this does not affect the outcome. |
Authorities
- relied: People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331 — Claims involving the trial court's failure to properly make or articulate discretionary sentencing choices are forfeited if not raised at sentencing; the unauthorized-sentence exception is limited to sentences that could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance.
- relied: People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 — A defendant who fails to object to a restitution fine in the trial court forfeits the challenge on appeal.
- relied: People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798 — On a silent record, a reviewing court presumes the trial court knew and correctly applied the governing law.
- relied: Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557 — A judgment or order of the lower court is presumed correct, and error must be affirmatively shown by the appellant.
- missed: People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177 — A defendant who fails to object at sentencing forfeits a challenge to restitution fines imposed above the statutory minimum; the court did not cite this directly on-point Supreme Court authority, which supports its forfeiture holding.
- missed: People v. Martinez (2014) 226 Cal.App.4th 759 — An ex post facto challenge claiming the trial court applied a later, higher statutory minimum restitution fine is forfeited by failure to object where the fine falls within the range authorized at the time of the offense; directly on point and supportive of the result but not cited.
The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The opinion correctly applies the forfeiture rule and the unauthorized-sentence exception, and its alternative merits holding rests on the proper presumption of regularity and the undisputed fact that the fines fell within the range authorized when the offenses were committed. It omits the most directly on-point authorities on forfeiture of restitution-fine ex post facto claims and slightly overstates that both fines are divisible by $280, but neither gap undermines the defensible result.
Opinion
Filed 3/24/15 P. v. Shaba 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, D065501
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD232237, SCD233745) RANSE SHABA, Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Jeffrey F.
Fraser, Judge. Affirmed.
Steven J. Carroll, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson, Lynne G.
McGinnis and Kristine A. Gutierrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. This appeal is from a sentencing involving two different cases. In case No.
SCD233745, Ranse Shaba entered a guilty plea to one count of first degree robbery in concert (Pen. Code,1 §§ 211 & 213, subd. (a)(1)(A)). He also admitted personal use of a firearm (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)). The parties agreed to a stipulated sentence of 13 years in prison.
In case No SCD232237, Shaba entered a guilty plea to first degree robbery and admitted the personal use of a firearm. The parties agreed the total sentence for the two cases would be 18 years four months in prison.
In case No. SCD232237 the court imposed a restitution fine of $1,540 (§ 1202.4).
In case No. SCD233745 the court imposed a restitution fine of $3,640. Shaba did not object to either of the restitution fines.
Shaba appeals challenging only the amounts of the restitution fines. He argues, for the first time on appeal, that at the time of his offenses the minimum restitution fine under the statute was $200. At the time of sentencing the minimum fine was $280.
Shaba speculates that the fines imposed were erroneously based on the trial court's mistaken view that the minimum fine was $280. Thus Shaba contends the fines violate the state and federal prohibitions against ex post facto punishment. (U.S. Const., art. I, § 10; Cal. Const., art. I, § 9.) We will first determine that Shaba has forfeited his claim by failing to make a timely objection in the trial court. In any event, since the fines imposed are well below the statutory maximum the court could have imposed and there is 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified. 2 nothing in the record to suggest the trial court was unaware of the correct amount of the minimum fine applicable to these crimes, Shaba has failed to provide a record which would justify reversal of the trial court's decision.2
DISCUSSION
Shaba recognizes that ordinarily sentencing issues not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal. (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 352-353; People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1468.) He contends, however the sentence imposed is "unauthorized" and thus is not forfeited by failing to timely raise it in the trial court. He claims the fines imposed were outside the jurisdiction of the trial court. Shaba is wrong on both points.
Since there is no discussion of the basis of the fines in the record, Shaba speculates they were both based on an erroneous assumption of the minimum amount. He notes both fines are divisible by $280, thus the trial court must have erred in its calculations.
The difficulty with Shaba's position, as he recognizes in his briefs, we presume the trial court was aware of the law and properly applied it, in the absence of a record that demonstrates the contrary. (People v. Braxton (2004) 34 Cal.4th 798, 814; Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 564.)
At the time of the offenses in this case section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) provided in part: "(b) In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary 2 Since the facts of the offenses are not relevant to the very narrow issue on appeal we will omit the traditional statement of facts 3 reasons for not doing so, and states the reasons on the record. [¶] (1) 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 dollars ($200), and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), if the person is convicted of a felony."
Nothing in the statute, nor in case law presented to us compels a trial court to calculate a fine using a particular base amount. The court had the jurisdiction under the statute to impose fines of up to $10,000 in this case. The fines imposed fall well within the jurisdiction of the court. That they may be divisible by $280, does not demonstrate the trial court's lack of knowledge of the applicable law. Of course, a timely objection would have clarified the issue, and if there was a misconception on the part of the trial court, it could have been corrected. By failing to raise the issue, the appellant has deprived the trial court of the opportunity to correct any possible error, and has deprived this court of a record which would permit meaningful review. The issue has been forfeited.
In any event, as we have pointed out, the total of the fines is well below the maximum authorized by statute. The calculation of the fines was within the trial court's discretion. Nothing in this record shows either legal error or abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we reject Shaba's contention that the fines at issue violated the protection against ex post facto punishments.
4 DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
AARON, J.
IRION, J.
Cites, in this corpus
- People v. Braxton S114375 · 2004-12-13
- People v. Scott No. S037757 · 1994-12-30
- People v. Gibson C017016 · 1994-08-31
- Denham v. Superior Court L.A. 29704 · 1970-05-06