Filed 1/19/18 P. v. Lund 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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.

JASON PATRICK LUND,

Defendant and Appellant.


E069237

(Super.Ct.No. FWV08389)

OPINION


APPEAL from the Superior Court of San Bernardino County. Shahla Sabet, Judge. Affirmed.
James M. Crawford, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
No appearance for Plaintiff and Respondent.
I
INTRODUCTION
Defendant and appellant Jason Patrick Lund appeals from the trial court’s denial of his motion to modify his sentence under former Government Code section 13967, requesting the trial court strike a $10,000 restitution fine imposed during his 1997 sentencing proceeding. Based on our independent review of the record, we find no error and affirm the judgment.
II
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
On February 7, 1997, a jury found defendant guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); count 1), first degree residential burglary (§ 459; count 2), robbery (§ 211; count 3), and torture (§ 206; count 4). The jury also found true the murder was committed while defendant was engaged in the commission of a burglary (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(vii)) and a robbery (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)(i)). The jury further found true that the murder was intentional and involved the infliction of torture (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(18)), and that in the commission of counts 1 and 4, defendant personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, to wit, a knife and a hammer (§ 12022, subd. (b)).
On March 10, 1997, defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole on count 1, plus a consecutive one-year term for the weapon-use enhancement attached to count 1. Sentence on the remaining counts were stayed under section 654. In addition, defendant was ordered to pay various state-mandated fines and fees, including a $10,000 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4. There was no objection to the ordered fines and fees.
On July 23, 2010, defendant filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, arguing the trial court improperly imposed a $10,000 restitution fine without considering his ability to pay and that the issue had not been waived.
On August 17, 2010, the trial court denied defendant’s request to strike the $10,000 restitution fine, concluding that: (1) the request was untimely and the court lacked jurisdiction to modify the sentence; (2) the trial court properly imposed a $10,000 restitution fine as defendant received a sentence of life without the possibility of parole and the court had considered the sum of $200 multiplied by the number of years of imprisonment considering both defendant’s age at the time of sentencing and defendant’s ability to pay based upon the length of his sentence; (3) the trial court considered the seriousness and gravity of the offense and the circumstances of its commission in imposing the $10,000 restitution fine; and (4) express findings by the trial court were not required in calculating the state restitution fine.
On March 20, 2017, defendant filed a motion to modify his sentence under former Government Code section 13967, again requesting the trial court strike the $10,000 restitution fine imposed during the 1997 sentencing proceeding.
On June 1, 2017, the trial court denied defendant’s motion to strike the $10,000 restitution fine.
On August 4, 2017, defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
III
DISCUSSION
After defendant appealed, upon his request, this court appointed counsel to represent him. Upon examination of the record, counsel has filed a brief under the authority of People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738, setting forth a statement of the case, a summary of the facts and potential arguable issue, and requesting this court to conduct an independent review of the record.
We offered defendant an opportunity to file a personal supplemental brief, and he has not done so.
An appellate court conducts a review of the entire record to determine whether the record reveals any issues which, if resolved favorably to defendant would result in reversal or modification of the judgment. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d at pp. 441-442; People v. Feggans (1967) 67 Cal.2d 444, 447-448; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. at p. 744; see People v. Johnson (1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109-112.)
Pursuant to the mandate of People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, we have independently reviewed the entire record for potential error and find no arguable error that would result in a disposition more favorable to defendant.
IV
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

CODRINGTON
J.
We concur:



RAMIREZ
P. J.



FIELDS
J.