Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Santa Clara County Super. Ct. No. CC512059
Mihara, Judge.
Defendant was charged by information with petty theft with a prior (Pen. Code, § 666) and receiving stolen property (Pen. Code, § 496, subd. (a)). It was further alleged that he had suffered two prior serious felony convictions (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12), and served prison terms for two prior felony convictions (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). The court subsequently struck one of the prior conviction allegations.
Defendant and the prosecution thereafter agreed to resolve the case. At the change of plea hearing, the court recited the agreement as “Count 1 [the petty theft with a prior count], four years, no more no less.” The prosecutor added: “Count 1 with a Harvey stip as to Count 2.” The court asked defendant “have any other promises been made to you, Mr. Misaalefua, that I haven’t just talked about here in court?” Defendant said “No.” The court informed defendant: “You’d also be required to pay a general fund and a victim restitution fund fine, not less than $200 no more than $10,000. You’d be required to pay actual restitution to the victim in this matter. And with regard to that, the People are asking that you enter into what is called a Harvey stipulation. [¶] Do you understand what that is?” Defendant said “No, your Honor.” The court explained, and defendant acknowledged that he understood and that he was willing to enter into a “Harvey stipulation.”
Defendant then waived his rights and pleaded no contest to the petty theft with a prior count and admitted the remaining allegations in exchange for dismissal of the receiving count and the agreed four-year state prison term. The court imposed the agreed upon four-year state prison term and an $800 restitution fund fine. Defendant filed a timely notice of appeal.
On appeal, defendant’s sole contention is that the trial court’s imposition of an $800 restitution fund fine violated his plea agreement.
In People v. Crandell (2007) 40 Cal.4th 1301, the California Supreme Court held that the imposition of a more-than-minimum restitution fund fine does not violate a plea agreement, even if the amount of the restitution fund fine was not mentioned as part of the plea agreement, so long as the defendant acknowledged that there had been no other promises to him other than the agreed prison term and he was informed that a restitution fund fine of between $200 and $10,000 would be imposed. (Crandell, at pp. 1309-1310.) Here, as in Crandell, defendant acknowledged that there had been no other promises to him other than the agreed prison term and he was informed that a restitution fund fine of between $200 and $10,000 would be imposed. Hence, under Crandell, we conclude that his plea agreement was not violated by the imposition of an $800 restitution fund fine. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.)
The judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: Bamattre-Manoukian, Acting P.J., Duffy, J.