People v. Hernandez CA4/1

Opinion

Filed 9/20/23 P. v. Hernandez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, D082087

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. RIF129735)

STEVEN G. HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Riverside County, Gail A. O’Rane, Judge. Affirmed. Steven G. Hernandez, in pro. per.; and John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent. In 2007, a jury convicted Steven G. Hernandez of three counts of assault with a firearm (Pen. Code,1 § 245, subd. (a)(2)), two counts of felon in possession of a firearm (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)), shooting into an inhabited dwelling (§ 246) and first degree burglary (§ 459). The court made a true 1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. finding that Hernandez had suffered two strike prior convictions (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)) and that Hernandez also had a serious felony prior conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)(1)). The court sentenced Hernandez to an indeterminate term of 25 years to life in prison on each count. The court imposed various fines and assessment including a $5,000 restitution fine. In 2023, Hernandez filed a nonstatutory “motion” to stay all fines and fees in excess of $200. The trial court denied the “motion” by written order, finding there were no fines or fees due, thus there was nothing to stay. Hernandez filed a notice of appeal. Although appellate counsel doubts the purported appeal is from an appealable order, counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo) indicating counsel has not been able to identify any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to exercise its discretion to independently review the record for error under the procedure used in cases controlled by People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende). We notified Hernandez he could file his own brief on appeal. He has responded with a lengthy document, which we have reviewed. As we will discuss below, his submission does not raise any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal.2 DISCUSSION Appellate counsel recognizes this purported appeal from the denial of Hernandez’s motion to vacate certain fines and fees which were imposed in the original judgment is governed by Delgadillo. Under the procedure 2 The facts of the 2007 offenses are not relevant to the resolution of this particular appeal. Therefore, we will exempt a statement of facts in this opinion. 2 established by our Supreme Court, our court can exercise its discretion to follow the Wende procedure. We have independently reviewed the record for error. We have not discovered any potentially meritorious issues for reversal on appeal. Hernandez’s brief has not raised any such issues. The supplemental brief assumes the trial court had jurisdiction to revisit the fines and fees contained in a judgment that has been final for a decade or more. There is nothing in the record to support a claim that any of the fines and fees imposed in the original judgment are unauthorized. The trial court reviewed Hernandez’s motion and concluded there are no unpaid fines which are due. Hernandez supports his claim by copies of the abstract of judgment from 2009. He did not establish in the trial court any specific fines which are subject to collection at this time. In short, Hernandez has not raised any arguable issues for reversal on appeal. DISPOSITION The order denying Hernandez’s motion to vacate all fines in excess of $200 is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BUCHANAN, J.

KELETY, J.