P. v.Thomas CA2/8 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  • Filed 1/12/15 P. v.Thomas CA2/8
    NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
    DIVISION EIGHT
    THE PEOPLE,                                                          B258025
    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                   (Los Angeles County
    Super. Ct. No. BA417988)
    v.
    BRANDON ELLIS THOMAS,
    Defendant and Appellant.
    APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County,
    Drew E. Edwards, Judge. Affirmed.
    James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
    Appellant.
    Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler and Lance E. Winters,
    Assistant Attorneys General, Victoria B. Wilson and Margaret E. Maxwell, Deputy
    Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
    _____________________________________
    Brandon E. Thomas pled no contest to one count of assault by force likely to
    produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) as part of a plea agreement
    which sentenced him to the low term of two years in state prison. Thomas contends on
    appeal that the trial court violated the prohibition against ex post facto laws under the
    state and federal constitutions when it also imposed a $300 restitution fine under Penal
    Code section 1202.4.1 There is no merit to this contention.
    During the plea colloquy, the prosecutor advised Thomas, among other things, that
    “[y]ou’ll have to pay a restitution fine of $300.” When asked whether he understood all
    the consequences of his plea, Thomas replied, “yes.” The record clearly shows the $300
    restitution fine is part of the plea agreement and is valid. (People v. Soria (2010) 
    48 Cal. 4th 58
    , 65, fn. 6 [“defendants are free to negotiate the amount of restitution fines as
    part of their plea bargains”]; People v. Crandell (2007) 
    40 Cal. 4th 1301
    , 1307 [“‘the
    parties must adhere to the terms of a plea bargain’”].)
    DISPOSITION
    The judgment is affirmed.
    BIGELOW, P.J.
    We concur:
    RUBIN, J.
    FLIER, J.
    1
    Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) requires every person convicted of a
    crime to pay a restitution fine unless the trial court “finds compelling and extraordinary
    reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record.”
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: B258025

Filed Date: 1/12/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/12/2015