House

People v. House

Good Law
107 Cal. Rptr. 3d 830·183 Cal. App. 4th 1049·2010 Cal. App. LEXIS 493
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 9, 2010B212057California2,633 words

Opinion

Opinion

Defendant/appellant Shantal House (Appellant) was charged in two separate informations with numerous theft-related offenses. Following plea negotiations, Appellant entered guilty pleas to one count from each information: (1) making a false financial statement, and (2) grand theft of an automobile, with the allegation that the property's value exceeded $50,000. (Pen. Code, §§ 487, subd. (d)(1), 532a, subd. (1), 12022.6, subd. (a)(1).)

Appellant challenges the amounts of the restitution and parole revocation fines imposed by the trial court. She contends the trial court did not realize that it had the discretion to impose lower fines. Although Appellant did not object to the fines in the trial court, she contends that we nonetheless should address the issue because the failure to object constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. We will hold that Appellant forfeited her right to object to the amounts of the fines and that she has failed to establish that her counsel provided ineffective assistance in failing to object. We will further hold that, even if Appellant did not forfeit her claim, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.