Fines/Fees/Assessments--Duenas

Name: People v. Kopp
Case #: S257844
Court: CA Supreme Court
Opinion Date: 12/29/2025

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.

Editor's Note: Justice Liu’s concurrence, joined by Justice Evans, would reach three additional issues and hold that…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Garcia
Case #: E083552
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/08/2025

The trial court and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s non-statutory postjudgment motion to vacate fines and fees. Defendant’s conviction was final, and he identified no express statutory authorization to reopen his case to allow the trial court to vacate the fines and fees. The Court of Appeal rejected claims that People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, PC 1172.1 (amended by AB 600), and GC 6111 (amended by AB 1869) conferred jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E083552.PDF

The trial court and the Court of Appeal lacked jurisdiction to consider defendant’s non-statutory postjudgment motion to vacate fines and fees. Defendant’s conviction was final, and he identified no express statutory authorization to reopen his case to allow the trial court to vacate the fines and fees. The Court of Appeal rejected claims that People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, PC 1172.1 (amended by AB 600), and GC 6111 (amended by AB 1869) conferred jurisdiction. Appeal dismissed.

The full opinion is available on the court’s website here: https://www4.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/E083552.PDF

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Estrada
Case #: JAD24-06
Court: CA Superior Court
District Superior Court
Opinion Date: 06/14/2024

The San Diego Appellate Court found that the decision in People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 does not apply to Domestic Violence Fund fines (PC 1203.097) because the Duenas court did not address this fine. The Court, noting Duenas is not settled law, agrees with the appellate court cases holding that Duenas was incorrectly decided as to restitution fines (PC 1202.4), thus trial courts need not find an ability to pay before imposing that fine. However, the Court finds Duenas was correctly decided on equal protection grounds as to the non-punitive criminal assessment fees (GC 70373) and court operation…

View Full Summary
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. Evers (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 212
Case #: A164989
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 10/06/2023

Defendant’s ability-to-pay challenge to his restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4(b)) was forfeited as it was not raised by trial counsel, and forfeiture was not negated by the Penal Code section 1237.2 motions his 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. Held: Affirmed. Defendant’s sentencing occurred two years after People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Belloso
Case #: B290968
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 7
Citation: 42 Cal.App.5th 647
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
Name: People v. Taylor
Case #: B293881
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Citation: 43 Cal.App.5th 1102
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
Citation: 44 Cal.App.5th 828
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
Citation: 39 Cal.App.5th 771
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
Citation: 39 Cal.App.5th 917
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