P. v. Delrio

Filed 6/27/06 P. v. Delrio CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

Defendant Jaime Guzman Delrio was sentenced to prison following a no contest plea to charges of false imprisonment and exhibiting a deadly weapon. As part of his sentence, the court ordered defendant to pay a restitution fund fine of $800. Defendant challenges the court's imposition of that fine on appeal. He asserts that the fine was not part of his plea bargain, and he asks us to reduce it to the statutory minimum.

We reject defendant's contentions and we affirm the judgment. As we explain, there is no violation of the plea bargain because defendant was aware of the restitution fine before entering his plea.

BACKGROUND

Because the sole issue in this appeal concerns sentencing, a brief recitation of the facts will suffice. As indicated in the probation report, the victim was defendant's ex-girlfriend; until their break-up in November 2003, the two had lived together, and they also had a child together. Defendant was arrested in the early morning hours of February 1, 2004, after the victim reported to Mountain View police that he had accosted her that evening, first pulling her bodily into his car against her wishes, and later carrying her away and threatening her with a knife.

Charges

On February 3, 2004, a felony complaint was filed in Santa Clara County, charging defendant with one count of stalking, two counts of false imprisonment, and one count of exhibiting a deadly weapon other than a gun. (Pen. Code, §§ 646.9, subd. (a) [count 1]; 236/237 [counts 2 and 3]; 417, subd. (a)(1) [count 4]; further unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.) The complaint also included special allegation that defendant had a prior strike conviction. (§§ 1170.12; 667, subds. (b)-(i).)

Change of Plea

In July 2004, defendant entered a plea of no contest to counts 2, 3, and 4, and he admitted his prior strike conviction. In exchange, the prosecution agreed to the dismissal of count 1, and the parties agreed to a sentencing range of 32 months to four years in prison.

Before the court accepted defendant's plea, it sought and obtained his acknowledgement that he would be required â€