People v. Latscha CA2/1, B306680

Rudy Latscha was convicted of two attempted murders (Jan. 28 and Feb. 8, 2016) and related assaults; jury found firearm and gang enhancements; he admitted a prior strike.
This court in an earlier appeal affirmed the convictions but vacated 10-year gang enhancements and remanded to allow the trial court to decide whether to strike firearm enhancements and the prior serious-felony enhancement, and to permit Dueñas ability-to-pay proceedings.
A preconviction probation report (June 8, 2017) existed; defendant was ineligible for probation due to his strike and firearm use.
At the July 2, 2020 resentencing hearing the court (1) declined to order a new probation report, (2) declined to strike firearm and prior serious-felony enhancements, and (3) imposed fines/fees after counsel addressed inability-to-pay but offered no evidence.
Defendant appealed, arguing (a) resentencing without a new probation report was error, (b) the court misunderstood its discretion regarding firearm enhancements (and should have imposed lesser enhancements), and (c) the court failed to comply with the remand on ability-to-pay hearings; he also disputed custody-credit calculation.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the sentence except it ordered amendment of the abstract of judgment to reflect 1,606 days of actual custody credit and 72 days of local conduct credit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Trial court failed to order a supplemental probation report	Not required because defendant was ineligible for probation; no request was made	Error: resentencing required updated report to assess mitigation/reform	Forfeited and without merit; rule 4.411 read with precedent means no supplemental report required; no prejudice shown
Trial court misunderstood its discretion to strike firearm enhancements or impose lesser ones	Court had discretion to keep enhancements; acted within sentencing discretion	Court misapplied/remained unaware it could strike greater and impose lesser charged enhancements	Forfeited; record shows court understood discretion; even if error, no prejudice and remand would be idle
Compliance with remand re: Dueñas ability-to-pay hearing	Court allowed counsel to address ability to pay; no evidence offered; minimal fees payable via prison wages	Court failed to hold required ability-to-pay hearing and should have stayed/struck assessments if inability shown	No error: defendant offered no evidence of inability; court permissibly concluded fees payable and remand would be idle
Abstract of judgment custody credits	Parties agree credits must be reflected correctly	Dispute over 1,604 vs 1,606 actual custody days	Abstract must be amended to show 1,606 actual custody days and 72 days local conduct credit

People v. Llamas, 67 Cal.App.4th 35 (probation-report/supplement requirement limited where defendant ineligible for probation)
People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (ability-to-pay framework for fines and assessments)
People v. Boyce, 59 Cal.4th 672 (forfeiture of sentencing articulation claims)
In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (application of forfeiture rule at sentencing)
People v. McDaniels, 22 Cal.App.5th 420 (trial court may strike greater firearm enhancement and impose lesser charged enhancement)
People v. Venegas, 44 Cal.App.5th 32 (remand unnecessary when record shows court would not have exercised discretion differently)
Dix v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.3d 442 (defendant entitled to normal sentencing procedures on remand when applicable)
People v. Rajanayagam, 211 Cal.App.4th 42 (calculation of custody credit starts day of arrest)