People v. Caceres (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 917 Subsequent history: On 1/2/2020, the California Supreme Court denied a petition for review without prejudice to any relief to which defendant might be entitled after the court decides People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, review granted 11/13/2019 (S257844/D072464). A request for an order to depublish the opinion was denied.
Editor’s Note: The published opinion in this case involved another issue as well.
Caceres pleaded no contest to a criminal threats charge. The trial court imposed a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)). On appeal, Caceres relied on Dueñas to argue the trial court violated his right to due process by imposing court assessments and a restitution fine without first ascertaining his ability to pay.
- The due process analysis in Dueñas does not support its broad holding beyond the facts of that case, and the extreme facts of Dueñas are not present in the record in this case.
- Given these conclusions, the court did not address whether Caceres forfeited his due process challenges to the fine and assessments at issue here.
- The court did not address the applicability of the Eighth Amendment (raised by the Attorney General) because Caceres did not raise an Eighth Amendment challenge in his opening brief.