(1) Must a court consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing or executing fines, fees, and assessments? (2) If so, which party bears the burden of proof regarding the defendant’s inability to pay?

Held: 

Constitutional due process does not require an ability to pay hearing prior to imposing any punitive “fine.” Instead, constitutional challenges to criminal fine amounts, such as the PC 1202.4(b) restitution fine, should be evaluated under the state and federal excessive fines clauses.

By contrast, upon request, a court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing the “ancillary costs” authorized by PC 1465.8(a)(1) and GC 70373(a)(1), as the failure to do so would violate equal protection.

This case was decided 12/29/25.  Justice Corrigan authored the opinion, in which Acting Chief Justice Evans and Justices Liu, Kruger, Groban, and Jenkins concurred. Justice Liu filed a concurring opinion, in which Acting Chief Justice Evans concurred.  Justice Rothschild filed a concurring and dissenting opinion. 

Review on this issue had also been granted with briefing deferred in:

• People v. Hicks (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 320, review granted 11/26/2019 (S258946/B291307)
• People v. Belloso (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 647, review granted 3/11/2020 (S259755/B290968)
• People v. Cowan (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 32, review granted 6/17/2020 (S261952/A156253)