Skip to content
Name: People v. Evers (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 551
Case #: A164989
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 11/28/2023

The forfeiture of defendant’s ability to pay challenge to his restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4(b)) was not negated by the section 1237.2 motions appellate counsel filed in the trial court. At sentencing after defendant’s felony plea, the court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine and imposed but suspended a $10,000 parole restitution fine. The court declined trial counsel’s request to reduce the restitution fines to $7,500 based on the statutory formula in section 1202.4(b)(2). Defendant appealed, arguing the restitution fines were unconstitutional under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. Prior to filing the opening brief, appellate counsel sent two informal letter…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Taylor
Case #: B293881
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 01/06/2020

Editor's Note: The published opinion in this case involved other issues as well.

A jury convicted Taylor of kidnapping to commit robbery as well as of the robbery itself. The trial court sentenced Taylor to prison and imposed fines and fees prior to the Dueñas decision. On appeal, Taylor challenged the fines and fees based on Dueñas.

Holdings/Reasoning:

  • Taylor forfeited his Dueñas claims because he did not object to the fines and fees in the trial court. (Citing People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126.
  • Taylor's trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing…
View Full Summary
Name: People v. Adams
Case #: H045718
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 01/29/2020

In two separate cases, Adams was placed on probation after pleading no contest to felony charges. In one case, defense counsel argued Adams did not have the ability to pay any fines or fees because he was homeless and did not have a job. The trial court did not impose a restitution fund fine in that case, but imposed other fines and fees. In the other case, the trial court imposed a restitution fine and other fines and fees. However, the court did not impose the criminal justice administration fee based on Adams’ inability to pay. Following a…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Evans
Case #: A154841
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 09/06/2019

Subsequent history: Petition for review denied 12/11/2019 and remittitur issued.

Evans was sentenced to a state prison term of 55 years to life, and was ordered to pay nearly $4,000 in direct victim restitution (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (f)) to the California Victim Compensation Board (which had paid that amount to the victim). On appeal, Evans argued that the trial court should have considered his ability to pay restitution, citing Dueñas.

Holdings/Reasoning:

  • A defendant's ability to pay victim restitution is not a proper factor to consider in setting a direct victim restitution award…
View Full Summary
Name: People v. Caceres
Case #: B292031
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/12/2019

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…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Kingston
Case #: B293920
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 10/04/2019

Subsequent history: No petition for review filed and remittitur issued.

In 2015, Kingston pleaded no contest to one count of receiving a stolen car. She was placed on formal probation for three years, conditioned on her reporting to probation and completing 45 hours of community service. The trial court also imposed fines and fees. Kingston ultimately failed to report, was found in violation, and was reinstated on probation. Eighteen months later, Kingston's probation officer reported she had been assessed additional fines, fees, and assessments. The probation officer also reported that Kingston had not fully complied…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Hicks
Case #: B291307
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/24/2019

Subsequent history: REVIEW GRANTED on 11/26/2019 with briefing deferred pending decision in People v. Kopp (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, review granted 11/13/2019 (S257844/D072464) (see below for more information on Kopp).
Editor's Note: This case is cited frequently.

A jury convicted Hicks of multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses and the trial court sentenced him to three years formal probation. He was ordered to pay a $40 court assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)), a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $150 drug program fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.7), and a $300…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Torres
Case #: B290895
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 09/10/2019

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.


View Full Summary
Name: In re M.B.
Case #: B295284
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 6
Opinion Date: 01/13/2020

Subsequent history: None at this time.
M.B. appealed a disposition order entered after the juvenile court sustained five petitions (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 602) for, inter alia, first degree residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The trial court declared M.B. a ward of the court, placed him in a camp community program, and ordered him to pay the mandatory minimum $100 restitution fine. (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 730.6, subd. (b)(1).) On appeal, M.B. relied on Dueñas to argue that ordering him to pay the $100 restitution fine violates his due process rights…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Belloso
Case #: B290968
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Opinion Date: 11/26/2019

Subsequent history: Review granted 3/11/2020 (S259755). The published opinion in this case involved another issue as well.

Editor's Note: This is the court that decided Dueñas.

Belloso was convicted of carrying a dirk or dagger (Pen. Code, § 21310) and he admitted a number of sentencing allegations. The court imposed a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, §70373, subd. (a)(1)) and a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)). The court also imposed the statutory minimum restitution fine of $300 (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), and it imposed and suspended…

View Full Summary