People v. Aguilar CA1/5

Filed 7/6/23 P. v. Aguilar CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for pur-
poses of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, A167229
v.
PRISCILLA N. AGUILAR, (Mendocino County
Defendant and Appellant. Super. Ct. No. 22CR00352)
Priscilla N. Aguilar appeals from the trial court’s order
revoking her probation and executing her previously imposed
prison sentence after she admitted violating conditions of her
probation. Aguilar’s appointed appellate counsel has filed a brief
pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436. Our
independent review of the record reveals no arguable issues that
would result in a disposition more favorable to Aguilar, and we
affirm the judgment with one modification.
BACKGROUND
In February 2022, Aguilar set another person’s car on fire.
After Aguilar was charged via information, she entered a plea
agreement, under which she pled no contest to one count of
property arson (Pen. Code, § 451, subd. (d))1 and admitted a
special allegation that the offense was committed during (and
within an area under) a declared state of emergency (§ 454,
1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.
1
subds. (a)(2), (b)). In exchange, Aguilar was to be granted
probation at the outset, understanding that she would serve a
stipulated five-year (middle term) prison sentence should she
violate probation.2
Pursuant to the negotiated disposition, the trial court
imposed the stipulated five-year prison sentence, suspended
execution of that sentence, and placed Aguilar on two years’
formal probation. Her probation conditions included a 180-day
jail term (with three days’ credit for time served); registration as
an arson offender (§ 457.1, subd. (b)(2)); completion of 50 hours of
community service; substance abuse and mental health
evaluation and treatment; a prohibition on possessing or using
narcotics or “restricted drugs” without a prescription; and a
prohibition on possessing incendiary devices (outside of her
kitchen).
The trial court ordered Aguilar to pay $1,673.69 in
restitution to the Ukiah Valley Fire Authority. It also imposed a
restitution fine of $300 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and
imposed (but stayed before revocation) a probation revocation
fine (id., § 1202.44) in the same amount. Without any objection
that Aguilar lacked the ability to pay, the trial court imposed, but
“permanently stay[ed],” both a $40 court operations assessment
(id., § 1465.8) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, §
70373).
Less than two months later, the district attorney filed and
served a petition alleging that Aguilar had violated the conditions
of her probation by ingesting Oxycodone without a prescription,
possessing a lighter, and failing to update her registration as an
arson offender when she moved (§ 457.1, subd. (b)). The latter
violation was separately charged as a misdemeanor in case no.
2 Aguilar explicitly stipulated that this was not a mitigated
case.
2
22CR03462. The trial court summarily revoked her probation.
At a hearing at which she was represented by counsel, Aguilar
waived her constitutional rights and plead no contest to the new
misdemeanor charged in case no. 22CR03462. She also admitted
the alleged probation violations in the instant matter.
With respect to the instant case (no. 22CR00352), the trial
court denied Aguilar’s request to reinstate probation and ordered
execution of the previously imposed prison sentence. The court
cited the nature of her violations and her previous admission of
the special allegation, which made her presumptively ineligible
for probation (§ 451, subd. (c)).
Aguilar was awarded 113 total custody credits—57 actual
days plus 56 conduct credits (§ 4019). The trial court imposed a
$300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and ordered due the
previously stayed $300 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44). The
court also imposed and suspended a $300 parole revocation fine
(§ 1202.45).
DISCUSSION
Aguilar’s appointed appellate counsel advised Aguilar of
her right to file a supplemental brief to bring to this court’s
attention any issue she believes deserves review. More than 30
days elapsed, and Aguilar filed no such brief.
We have undertaken an examination of the entire record
and found no arguable error that would result in a disposition
more favorable to Aguilar. However, we modify the judgment in
one respect. The trial court lacked authority to stay the
assessments mandated by Penal Code section 1465.8 and
Government Code section 70373, or to otherwise decline to
impose them as merely “recommended.” Accordingly, its order
staying the assessments created an unauthorized sentence that
we may correct at any time despite the People’s failure to raise
3
the issue below. (See In re G.C. (2020) 8 Cal.5th 1119, 1129-
1130; People v. Woods (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 269, 271-273.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to lift the stay on the $40 court
operations assessment and the $30 court facilities assessment.
As so modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is
directed to enter an amended abstract of judgment and forward a
certified copy of the same to the Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
4
______________________
BURNS, J.
We concur:
____________________________
JACKSON, P.J.
____________________________
SIMONS, J.
A167229
5