P. v. Alley CA5 filed 8/20/26

Filed 8/20/26 P. v. Alley CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,Plaintiff and Respondent,v.RODGER DALE ALLEY, JR.,Defendant and Appellant.
F089867(Super. Ct. No. F06906977)OPINION

THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. James A. Kelley, Judge.
John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kimberley A. Donohue, Assistant Attorney General, Ivan P. Marrs and Dina Petrushenko, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
-ooOoo-
INTRODUCTION
Appellant and defendant Rodger Dale Alley, Jr., (appellant) was convicted of firstdegree murder with two prior prison term enhancements. He was sentenced to twoyears plus 25 years to life, and the judgment was affirmed on appeal.
In 2025, the trial court recalled appellant’s sentence pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75 because it included prior prison term enhancements that are now invalid. The court dismissed the prior prison term enhancements and again sentenced appellant to 25 years to life, and stayed or suspended the amounts of any fines or fees that were unpaid.
On appeal, appellant and the People agree the abstract of judgment must be amended to show that the restitution fine was vacated and the trial court security fee was stayed. We also order corrections on the minute order from the resentencing hearing. As amended, the judgment is affirmed.
FACTS
In June 2006, the body of Courtney Rice was found in the bed of a pickup truck that had been abandoned. “The pathologist determined Rice had been dead for two to three days. The handcuff marks and contusions on her wrists and ankles indicated she had been bound for some time, and the marks occurred before death. There were clearing marks around the victim’s mouth, consistent with electrical or some type of tape. There was no evidence of strangulation. [¶] There was a hemorrhage below the right side of Rice’s scalp consistent with blunt force trauma inflicted prior to death, but it was not the cause of death. An injury to her right lip was consistent with blunt trauma, consistent with a towel being pushed into her face to try and smother her.” (Alley I, supra,F083008.) “The pathologist determined the [Rice]’s cause of death was ‘probable asphyxia due to binding and gagging,’ meaning a lack of oxygen or an increase in the carbon dioxide level in the blood.” (Ibid.)
PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In 2008, appellant was convicted after a jury trial of the first degree murder of Rice. He was sentenced to two years for prior prison term enhancements plus 25 years to life for murder. The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 (§1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended the parole revocation fine in the same amount (§1202.45), and also imposed a $20 court security fee (§1465.8). The parties stipulated to victim restitution of $7,500 (§1202.4, subd. (f)(2)). This court affirmed the judgment on appeal. (Alley I, supra,F083008.)
In 2021, the trial court denied appellant’s petition for resentencing of his first degree murder conviction pursuant to former section 1170.95, later renumbered as section 1172.6. The court found appellant failed to state a prima facie case for relief and was ineligible for resentencing because the record of conviction showed he was convicted as “ ‘a principal in the crime or a direct aider’ ” who acted “ ‘willfully, deliberately, and with intent to kill the victim.’ ” This court affirmed the ruling on appeal. (Alley I, supra,F083008.)
SECTION 1172.75 RECALL AND RESENTENCING
On December 1, 2023, the trial court stated appellant had been identified by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation as eligible for recall and resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75.
On May 14, 2025, the trial court convened the section 1172.75 recall and resentencing hearing.
Defense counsel stated the prosecutor was going to dismiss the two years imposed for the prior prison term enhancements but would not dismiss appellant’s first degree murder conviction. However, appellant could “either take the two years reduction and get sentenced today, or you can ask for full resentencing” at a later time.
Appellant addressed the trial court and said that he was “fine to take the two prior prison priors off,” and he had no problem with that. Appellant said he did not want to give up his rights to any other sentence reductions that he would be eligible for, because he was going to file a petition for resentencing pursuant to section 1172.1 and Assembly Bill No. 600 (2023–2024 Reg. Sess.). Both the court and defense counsel explained to appellant that the other petition was not the subject of this hearing and would constitute a separate matter.
Appellant said he would “take the two years off” and waive his right to a full resentencing hearing. Appellant asked if he could get some “old restitution fines” off his record, and said he had already paid victim restitution.
The trial court dismissed the two prior prison term enhancements, and resentenced appellant to 25 years to life for count 1, first degree murder. The court suspended or stayed any unpaid amounts of the previously imposed court fees and the restitution fine. The court stated it would not suspend the victim restitution order.
On May 22, 2025, appellant filed a timely notice of appeal from the trial court’s order on May 14, 2025.
DISCUSSION
On appeal, appellant has not challenged the trial court’s resentencing order. Instead, he notes the court granted his motion to suspend or stay any unpaid fines and fees, and requests correction of the record to reflect that order.
Appellant further notes the abstract of judgment filed on May 19, 2025, after the resentencing hearing, erroneously showed the trial court imposed the restitution fine of $10,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and the court security fee of $20 (§ 1465.8).
Appellant contends, and the People agree, the trial court must prepare an amended abstract of judgment to correct clerical errors that are inconsistent with the court’s rulings. (People v. Mitchell(2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
The parties further agree that while the trial court intended to stay or suspend any unpaid balance of the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) $10,000 restitution fine, that fine must be vacated pursuant to section 1465.9, subdivision (d). The parties also agree the amended abstract must show the court security fee was suspended. We order preparation of an amended abstract of judgment.
We also order preparation of an amended minute order for the May 14, 2025 resentencing hearing. The minute order erroneously states appellant was convicted and sentenced to 25 years to life for “[s]econd [d]egree” murder. It must be corrected to state he was convicted and sentenced for first degree murder.
The May 14, 2025 minute order also states that the “[b]alance of fines and fees are suspended, except victim restitution.” It must be corrected to state the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine of $10,000 was vacated pursuant to section 1465.9, subdivision (d), the court security fee was suspended, and victim restitution was not vacated, stayed, or suspended.
DISPOSITION
The trial court is ordered to amend the minute order for the May 14, 2025, resentencing hearing to state that appellant was convicted and sentenced for first degree murder, the section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine of $10,000 was vacated pursuant to section 1465.9, subdivision (d), the court security fee was suspended, and victim restitution was not vacated, stayed, or suspended.
The trial court is ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment for the May 14, 2025, resentencing hearing to show the $10,000 restitution fine was vacated (§ 1465.9, subd. (d)) and the court security fee of $20 was suspended.
The clerk of the superior court shall forward a certified copy of the amended abstract of judgment to theappropriate entities.
As corrected, the judgment is affirmed.