People v. Garcia CA4/3 ( 2024 )

Filed 5/17/24 P. v. Garcia CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, G062815
v. (Super. Ct. No. 17HF1025)
ALEJANDRO HERNANDEZ GARCIA, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Gregg L.
Prickett, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney
General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel and Elana
Miller, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
Alejandro Hernandez Garcia appeals from a judgment following a
sentencing hearing. He and the Attorney General agree that three issues justify a reversal
and remand for further proceedings. We agree. The matter is reversed and remanded
with directions.
FACTS
The details of Garcia’s underlying convictions for two separate rapes were
discussed in our earlier opinion. (People v. Garcia (Feb. 9, 2023, G060566) [nonpub.
opn.].) Garcia was convicted on six counts for his first victim and two counts for his
1
second victim. The trial court imposed consecutive terms that totaled 156 years to life—
comprised of a six-year determinate sentence and 150-years-to-life indeterminate
sentence—as well as multiple fines and fees that included a $5,000 restitution fine, a fine
to fund victim-witness assistance, and fines related to funding for AIDS education. A
July 2021 abstract of judgment reflected 1,651 days of custody credit.
In Garcia’s direct appeal from the judgment, People v. Garcia, supra,
G060566, we affirmed the convictions but reversed and remanded for resentencing on
one aspect of the sentence imposed (which is not material here). We also ordered
stricken the fines related to the victim-witness assistance and education funding noted
above. (Ibid.)
On remand, in June 2023, the trial court resentenced appellant to a total
prison term of 154 years (based on a reduction of the determinate term). As Garcia
correctly states, the court reinstated all previous fines and fees except for the three
1
The convictions for the first victim were forcible rape (Pen. Code, § 261,
subd. (a)(2)) (all further statutory references are to the Penal Code), two counts of
forcible sexual penetration by a foreign object (§ 289, subd. (a)(1)(A)), two counts of
forcible oral copulation (§ 288a, subd. (c)(2)(A)), and forcible sodomy (§ 286,
subd. (c)(2)(A)). For the second victim, Garcia was convicted of rape of an intoxicated
person (§ 261, subd. (a)(3)), and assault with the intent to commit a sexual offense
(§ 220, subd. (a)(1)).
2
unauthorized fines that we had ordered stricken. On Garcia’s restitution fine, the trial
court denied his request to reassess the $5,000 amount originally imposed. The denial
was based on a premise that our remand order precluded the court from exercising its
discretion on the amount. After the resentencing, an amended abstract of judgment was
issued only for the determinate sentence imposed.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, Garcia seeks relief for the following three issues that the
Attorney General does not dispute: (1) “[t]he trial court erred in [ruling] it had no
authority to reconsider the amount of the restitution fine as part of the resentencing
hearing”; (2) the abstract of judgment for the court’s indeterminate sentence still
incorrectly reflects imposition of three fines we ordered stricken in People v. Garcia,
supra, G060566; and (3) the amended abstract does not properly reflect additional
custody credits for the time between the 2021 and 2023 judgments.
We agree with the parties that each issue justifies appellate relief. First, a
trial court has discretion to reconsider a restitution fine amount, for the purposes of
possibly lowering it, as part of resentencing. (People v. Burbine (2003) 106 Cal.App.4th
1250, 1258-1259 [trial court jurisdiction for resentencing on remand covers “‘entire
sentencing scheme’”]; People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355, 361-365, 367 [restitution
fine constitutes punishment that cannot be increased following successful appeal].)
Because our remand order did not specify restitution instructions, the trial court was
mistaken when it ruled that we precluded it from reconsidering a lower amount. (People
v. Hanson, supra, 23 Cal.4th at pp. 361-365, 367.) The second and third issues are
governed under the rule that a record which does not accurately reflect the trial court’s
oral pronouncement of judgment is incorrect and can be corrected on appeal even if
raised on appeal for the first time. (People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1364, 1367,
fn. 3, 1369.)
3
We direct the trial court to correct the abstracts of judgment for Garcia’s
determinate and indeterminate prison commitment so that: (1) they do not reflect
2
originally imposed fines which we ordered stricken, in the amounts of $1,500 (§ 667.6,
sub. (f)), $70 (§ 264, sub. (b)), and $70 (§ 286, sub. (m)); and (2) they reflect a correct
calculation of applicable custody credits. Given the errors in the preparation of the
abstracts of judgment, we request the trial court personally ensure new abstracts are
amended to accurately reflect the court’s judgment.
DISPOSITION
The matter is remanded for resentencing to allow the trial court to exercise
its discretion under all relevant sentencing statutes. Upon resentencing Garcia, the trial
court is directed to prepare amended abstracts of judgment to accurately reflect the
court’s judgment. The trial court is further directed to forward certified copies of the
amended abstracts of judgment to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
O’LEARY, P. J.
WE CONCUR:
SANCHEZ, J.
MOTOIKE, J.
2
Neither party provides an accurate citation showing where on an abstract of
judgment the fines at issue are reflected. Based on the record presented, we discern the
two $70 fines noted in the trial court’s July 6, 2021, oral pronouncement of judgment and
the $1,500 fine noted in the oral pronouncement as well as the 12th paragraph of the July
19, 2021, abstract of judgment for Garcia’s indeterminate sentence.
4