People v. Overstreet CA5, F077761

Case No. VCF331697 ("1697"): May 2016 plea of no contest to felony robbery; probation granted with conditions including a $500 restitution fine (payable $50/mo), a suspended $500 probation-revocation fine, victim restitution, and other court assessments.
Case No. VCF355373 ("5373"): August 2017 incident led to charges; May 25, 2018 jury convicted Overstreet of lesser included simple assault and indecent exposure; the court found a probation violation in 1697 that same day.
June 25, 2018 sentencing: probation in 1697 revoked and appellant received a three-year prison term; the court reimposed the original $500 restitution fine, the $500 probation-revocation fine, and statutory assessments; in 5373 appellant received 180 days custody.
Appellant filed a notice of appeal (July 5, 2018) listing only case 5373. His opening brief raised a Dueñas-based challenge (ability-to-pay) to the fines/fees imposed in 1697.
Appellant later sought to augment the record and asked the appellate court to construe the notice to include 1697; respondent argued the omission of 1697 made any appeal of those fines untimely and procedurally defective.
The Court of Appeal denied the motion to construe the notice of appeal, found no showing of constructive filing or certificate of probable cause for 1697, concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the 1697 judgment, and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Overstreet)	Held
Whether the notice of appeal listing only case 5373 can be liberally construed to include case 1697 so the court may review fines/fees challenged under Dueñas	The notice omitted case 1697 and thus the appeal as to that judgment is untimely and unperfected; respondent was prejudiced; no certificate of probable cause or proof of constructive filing shown	The judgments were pronounced same day, sentencing papers referenced both cases, and the court should liberally construe the notice (or apply constructive filing) to permit review of the Dueñas-based challenge	The notice clearly pertained only to 5373; omission of 1697 was dispositive, no certificate or verified showing of constructive filing was made, respondent could be prejudiced; motion to construe denied and appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Dueñas v. Superior Court, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (holding courts must consider ability to pay before imposing certain fines/fees under due process)
Silverbrand v. County of Los Angeles, 46 Cal.4th 106 (2009) (discussing doctrine of constructive filing and notice periods)
In re Chavez, 30 Cal.4th 643 (2003) (standard for proving constructive filing by incarcerated appellant)
People v. Lyons, 178 Cal.App.4th 1355 (2009) (appeal barred if notice not actually or constructively filed in time; appellate court lacks jurisdiction)
Filbin v. Fitzgerald, 211 Cal.App.4th 154 (2012) (limits on liberal construction of notices of appeal where notice clearly indicates intent to appeal only one order)