People v. Joyce CA4/1

Filed 5/17/23 P. v. Joyce 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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, D080767
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v. (Super. Ct. Nos. SCD267204,
SCD268026)
STEVEN L. JOYCE,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County,
Michael S. Groch, Judge. Affirmed.
Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
This is an appeal from the denial of a postjudgment motion to vacate
fines and fees previously included in the judgment of conviction.
In 2018, Steven L. Joyce was sentenced to prison for convictions in two
criminal cases (case Nos. SCD267204 and SCD268026) for a term of 23 years
and four months. The trial court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine in case
No. SCD268026, and a $1,200 restitution fine in case No. SCD267204.
In 2022, Joyce filed a pro. per. motion entitled “Administrative Notice
and Motion for Order Vacating Judgment Imposing Court-Costs (Fines &
Restitution) Rendered Unenforceable/Uncollectable by P.C. §1465.9.” The
trial court denied the motion.
Joyce filed a notice of appeal in each case and requested certificates of
probable cause (Pen. Code, § 1237.5). The trial court denied the requests for
certificates of probable cause.
Appellate counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979)
25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende), indicating counsel has not been able to identify any
arguable issues for reversal on appeal. Counsel asks the court to
independently review the record as mandated by Wende. We offered Joyce
the opportunity to file his own brief on appeal, but he has not responded.
The facts of the underlying convictions are not relevant to the issues
presented by this appeal. We will not include a statement of facts.
DISCUSSION
As we have noted, appellate counsel has filed a Wende brief and asks
the court to review the record for error. Counsel also requests the court to
grant judicial notice of the proper motion from which this appeal is based.
The document was not included in the clerk’s transcript on appeal. We grant
the request and take judicial notice of the document.
In compliance with Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738 (Anders),
appellate counsel has also identified two possible issues that were considered
in evaluating the potential merits of this appeal:
1. Did the trial court err in denying Joyce’s motion to vacate the
fines previously imposed?
2. Did the trial court prejudicially err in failing to appoint counsel
before denying the motion?
2
We have reviewed the entire record as required by Wende and Anders.
We have not discovered any arguable issues for reversal on appeal.
Competent counsel has represented Joyce on this appeal.
DISPOSITION
The order denying Joyce’s motion to vacate fines and costs is affirmed.
HUFFMAN, Acting P. J.
WE CONCUR:
O’ROURKE, J.
BUCHANAN, J.
3