P. v. Crosby >













Filed 7/30/10 P. v. Crosby
CA4/2













NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for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 TWO




>

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LOUIS CROSBY, Defendant and Appellant.

E050094 (Super.Ct.No. FSB702668) OPINION

APPEAL from the Superior
Court of San
Bernardino County. Donna G. Garza, Judge. Dismissed.

Charlotte E. Costan, under
appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Edmund G. Brown Jr.,
Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W.
Schons, Assistant Attorney General, and James D. Dutton and Emily R. Hanks,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Defendant Louis Crosby was found guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code,
§§ 187, subd. (a), 189), with an enhancement for personally and
intentionally discharging a firearm and causing death (Pen. Code,
§ 12022.53, subd. (d)). As a
result, he was sentenced to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in
prison. As part of his sentence, he was
ordered to pay a restitution fine in the amount of $10,000 (Pen. Code,
§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), plus direct victim restitution, payable to the
Victim Compensation Fund, in the amount of $5,779.61 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4,
subd. (f)).

Defendant filed a previous appeal from the
judgment; in it, he did not challenge these restitution amounts. We affirmed the judgment. (People
v. Crosby
(Mar. 10, 2010, E047828)
[nonpub. opn.].)

While that appeal was pending, defendant (in
propria persona) filed a motion to reduce or to eliminate the restitution
amounts, on grounds including that there was insufficient evidence of his
ability to pay. The trial court denied
the motion.

Defendant appeals from that order, arguing that
the trial court erred because he lacked the ability to pay. We disagree, for six separate reasons.

First, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to
entertain the motion because defendant's first appeal was still pending. â€