People v. Gentry
California Court of Appeal
[Opinion certified for partial publication.*]
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
STEIN, J.
Appellant Richard Eugene Gentry appeals from the imposition of a $5,000 restitution fine pursuant to Government Code section 13967, subdivision (a). Appellant contends that it was error to impose the fine because it violated the terms of his plea agreement. Arguing in the alternative, appellant contends that even if the plea bargain was not violated, it was error to impose the restitution fine without a consideration of appellant’s ability to pay. For the reasons stated below, we hold (1) that the imposition of the fine did not violate the terms of the plea agreement, (2) that…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- People v. LongCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
3Cited by19 opinions
- People v. DouglasCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1995
- Davis v. Superior Court of Riverside CountyCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- People v. Alcala CA5California Court of Appeal · 2021
- People v. Cains CA2/2California Court of Appeal · 2015
- People v. CervantesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2020
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.