Subsequent history: Petition for review denied on 12/11/2019 and remittitur issued.
Editor’s Note: The published opinion in this case involved other issues as well.
Torres was convicted of multiple felony offenses. The trial court imposed a $320 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), a $240 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $10,000 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) without finding that Torres had the present financial ability to pay. The fines and fees were imposed prior to the Dueñas decision. On appeal, Torres challenged the fines and fees, relying on Dueñas.
- Defendant forfeited his fines and fees challenge under Dueñas by failing to object or request an ability to pay hearing at the time of sentencing. (Citing People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 729 [defendant forfeited issue by failing to object to imposition of restitution fine based on inability to pay]; People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126, 1154; People v. Bipialaka (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 455, 464.)
- Because Torres did not object to the $10,000 restitution fine, he cannot be heard to complain that the trial court erred in not considering his ability to pay the $400 court security fee and $300 criminal conviction assessment. (Citing People v. Gutierrez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1033.)
- In a footnote, the court observed that defendant’s forfeited due process, equal protection, and excessive fines arguments also lacked merit. He made no showing that the $10,000 restitution fine was grossly disproportionate to the gravity of his offenses, impacts a fundamental liberty interest, or will result in imprisonment or revocation of parole if not paid.