DUI Lawyers Directory. Search for a dui lawyer near you. Operating a vehicle while drinking could cause judicial actions.
 Zip Code Search for DUI Lawyers
Defending Alleged Drunk Driving Criminal Acts Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Read about successful dui defense cases from member dui lawyers Membership at DUI Defenders Discuss issues related to dui/dwi/owi Contact Us about a DUI Lawyer

  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

People v. Donaldson

8/23/2005



THE COURT


Pursuant to a plea agreement covering Kings County Superior Court case Nos. 04CM0794 (case No. 1), 04CM1890 (case No. 2), 04CM1898 (case No. 3), and 04CM2420 (case No. 4), appellant Cory Donaldson pled guilty as follows: in case No. 1, to felony unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851), misdemeanor driving under the influence of drugs and/or alcohol (Veh. Code, § 23152, subd. (a)) and hit-and-run driving (Veh. Code, § 20002); in case No. 2, to second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459; 460, subd. (b)); in case No. 3, to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377) and receiving stolen property (§ 496, subd. (a)); and in case No. 4, to forgery (§ 470, subd. (a)). The court imposed a prison sentence of five years eight months, consisting of the following: the three-year upper term for receiving stolen property (case No. 3); and eight months, representing one-third of the midterm, on each of the following offenses: possession of methamphetamine (case No. 3); unlawful driving or taking of a vehicle (case No.1); second degree burglary (case No. 2) and forgery (case No. 4). The court imposed concurrent six-month terms on each of the two misdemeanor convictions (case No. 1). The court also imposed, on each of case Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, a restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) in the same amount, as follows: in case No. 1, $200; in case No. 2, $200; in case No. 3, $700; and in case No. 4, $200. In each case the court stayed the parole revocation fine pending successful completion of parole.


On appeal, appellant contends (1) the court erred in imposing separate restitution (§ 1202.4) and parole revocation (1202.45) fines in each of case Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4; (2) in case No. 4, appellant was entitled to 87 days of presentence custody credit but the court granted appellant only 86 days of such credit; and (3) in case No. 1, the abstract of judgment states that the court awarded appellant no presentence custody credit when, in fact, the court awarded appellant one day of such credit. We will find merit in appellant's credit-related arguments, modify the judgment accordingly and otherwise affirm.


DISCUSSION


The Restitution Fines


Appellant argues that the trial court erred in imposing separate restitution fines on each case because the four cases "were joined for pleas and sentencing," and " s a result, they were one case for purposes of application of restitution fines under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 despite the fact that they retained distinct case numbers."


Section 1202.4, subdivision (b) provides that subject to exceptions not relevant here: "In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine . . . ." (Emphasis added.) Section 1202.45 requires a parole revocation fine in the same amount " n every case where a person is convicted of a crime" if the defendant's sentence includes a period of parole. (Emphasis added.) The question here is whether appellant was convicted in one case or in four cases.


We find instructive this court's recent case of People v. Enos (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1046, decided after briefing was completed in the instant case. In that case, this court held the trial court did not err in imposing separate restitution and parole revocation fines in each of three cases to which appellant pled guilty under a plea agreement covering all three cases and in which appellant was sentenced in a single proceeding. In reaching this conclusion, we found inapplicable People v. Ferris (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 1272, a case on which the defendant relied and on which appellant

Page 1 2 3 

California DUI Attorneys    DUI Lawyers


  to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.

DUI Driving Defined Highway Defined
Under Influence Defined DUI/3 Strikes DUI & Manslaughter
DUI & Murder DUI Punishment Sobriety Checkpoints
DMV's Role in DUI Revocation vs. Suspension Field Sobriety Testing
Speed Measurement Prior DUI Convictions Drawing Blood & Consent
Refusal to Test DUI Lawyers Testimonials by Member DUI Lawyers
DUI Articles Ignition Interlock Implied Consent
Summary DUI License Suspension In-home Arrest Vehicle Defined
 RSS Feeds  |  Articles  |  Jobs  |  Leads
SiteMap | DUI Blog | DUI Lawyers | DUI Attorneys | Member Agreement | Terms of Service
Attorneys Click Here | DUI Case Laws | FAQ | Directory of DUI Attorneys | Success Stories | Press Releases
Copyright © 2004. “DUI Defenders”. All rights reserved.