Appeals

A. Appeasable Judgments

1.  Appealability of Deferred Judgment: When Entry of judgment is deferred pursuant to Penal Code[1]
 section 1000, it is not an appealable judgment

Following denial of her motion to suppress incriminating evidence, defendant Mary Lucia Mazurette pleaded no contest to violating Health and Safety Code section 11377, possession of methamphetamine.  Entry of judgment was deferred pursuant to Penal Code[1] section 1000 et seq., and she entered a drug diversion program.  We granted review to decide whether sections 1000-1000.4 preclude defendant from immediately appealing the trial courtÆs decision denying her suppression motion.  As explained below, we conclude the Court of Appeal correctly dismissed defendant's appeal. THE PEOPLE,  v. MARY LUCIA MAZURETTE,SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA, S081661, Ct.App. 2/2 B121068, Los Angeles County. Super. Ct. No. KA038476.


2. Correction Restitution-Errors: Appellate courts may not correct these errors if the trial court failed to state a reason for its failure to impose a restitution:

Despite these statutory mandates, trial courts, at times, omit these fines from the judgment of conviction.  In many of these cases, the People have asked the Court of Appeal to impose the fines even though it did not object at sentencing.  We recently held that appellate courts may not correct these errors if the trial court failed to state a reason for its failure to impose a restitution and parole revocation fine, and the People failed to object below.THE PEOPLE, v DONTE OSBON SMITH et al.,
Filed 1/11/0, SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA , S088387, Ct.App. 2/5 B129442,  Los Angeles County
Super.Ct.No. BA159749