Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People v. Roland Hoffman

August 16, 2012

THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
v.
ROLAND HOFFMAN, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.



(Super. Ct. No. 10F03628)

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hoch , J.

P. v. Hoffman

CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

A jury convicted defendant Roland Hoffman of receiving stolen property. (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a).)*fn1 In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court found that defendant had served four prior prison terms. (§ 667.5, subd. (b).) The court sentenced defendant to a state prison term of seven years (three years, the upper term for the present offense, plus one year for each prior prison term). The court also ordered various fines and fees, which we enumerate below.

On appeal, defendant contends that (1) the jail booking fee, classification fee, and presentence report fee must be stricken because there is no evidence defendant has the ability to pay them, and (2) the trial court abused its discretion in imposing the restitution fine and the case must be remanded for an impartial judge to determine the restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4.

We conclude defendant has forfeited his challenge to the fees because he failed to object to the fees imposed by the trial court. With regard to the restitution fine, we conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the restitution fine. As to the fines and fees imposed, the abstract of judgment does not specify the statutory bases for the fines and fees. Therefore, we must remand the matter for correction of the abstract of judgment. The judgment is affirmed.

DISCUSSION

Summary of Facts

Because defendant's contentions do not attack the jury verdict or the true finding on his prior prison terms, we need not discuss the facts in detail. In a nutshell, defendant entered a business at a time when the employees were working in the back, went behind the counter, unplugged the cash register, and carried it out of the store. A surveillance camera detected his actions, but the employees discovered the theft only after his departure. A passerby on the street saw defendant slam the cash register repeatedly into the ground, pick up a piece of it, and carry it toward a car. The business owners had paid about $300 for the register, and it contained about $200 in cash when stolen.

I

The Jail Booking Fee, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.