Other Fines, Fees and Costs (Duenas)
Category > Other Fines, Fees and Costs (Duenas)
Updated 3/6/2024Duenas was properly decided and the trial court erred by failing to consider defendant’s ability to pay before imposing court assessments and restitution fines.The trial court violated defendant’s due process rights by failing to consider his ability to pay before imposing court assessments and restitution fines. People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 was properly decided on due process grounds, and the issue should not be reviewed under the excessive fines analysis of the Eighth Amendment.id: 26534
Updated 3/5/2024State court construction fee, and related fees imposed on adults following conviction, do not apply to a juvenile adjudged a ward of the court. The minor was found to have committed the alleged drunk driving offense and was declared a ward of the court. The juvenile court erred in imposing certain penalties including, the state court construction fee under Government Code section 70372, and similar fees under related provisions because the penalties are inapplicable to a juvenile adjudged a ward of the court.id: 26889
Updated 2/26/2024Duenas error was not forfeited given the controlling law at the time of sentencing, but the error was harmless since the fees could be covered by prison wages.Defendant argued the trial court’s imposition of a $70 fee for court construction and operations, without considering his ability to pay, violated his right to due process. Defendant’s failure to raise the issue in the trial court did not forfeit the issue on appeal given the controlling law at the time. However, any error was harmless where defendant was sentenced to six years in prison, and with prison wages ranging from $12 to $56 per month, he would have the ability to pay the fees.id: 26249
Updated 2/26/2024Failure to object on Duenas grounds did not forfeit the issue of defendant’s ability to pay fees and fines.Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing certain fees and a restitution fine without determining his ability to pay. Defendant’s failure to object on this basis in the trial court did not forfeit the issue on appeal. The matter was remanded for an ability-to-pay determination.id: 26364
Updated 2/24/2024Defendant faced with the imposition of the minimum restitution fine or assessments must be given the opportunity to show he lacks the ability to pay.Defendant argued that under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the trial court violated his due process rights by imposing $70 in assessments and the $300 restitution fine - both of which are statutory minimums, without determining his ability to pay. Counsel at sentencing informed the court that defendant did not have the ability to pay. Upon proper objection, a sentencing court must allow a defendant facing imposition of a minimum restitution fine or assessments to present evidence and argue why the fees exceed his ability to pay. The analysis is not based on due process but rather by the excessive fines clauses of the state and federal constitutions. The matter was remanded to allow defendant to present evidence of his inability to pay now or in the future.id: 26720
Updated 2/22/2024The administrative fee was invalid because the law pursuant to which it had been imposed was repealed before sentencing.The 15 percent administrative fee applied to the victim restitution orders was invalid because the statutory provision pursuant to which it was imposed (Penal Code section 1203.1, subd. (e)) had been repealed two months before for the sentencing. id: 28098
Updated 2/7/2024Counsel did not forfeit Dueñas issue by failing to object given the state of the law at the time, and the fact that he had a job when arrested did not show he could pay fines and assessments.Because counsel could not reasonably have anticipated the change in the law, he did not forfeit Dueñas issue by failing to object to the restitution fine and court assessments. Remand was appropriate due to the undeveloped record, and the court could not speculate that defendant had to ability to pay the fines and fees simply because he was working and had an income before his arrest. id: 27202
Updated 2/3/2024Any portion of the criminal justice administration fee that remained unpaid when the law was repealed must be vacated. On July 1, 2021, the statutory provision pursuant to which the court ordered defendant to pay a $154 criminal justice administration fee was repealed. Defendant was entitled to vacatur of that portion of the criminal justice administration fee imposed under Government Code section 29550.1 that remained unpaid as of July 1st.id: 27504
The trial court erred by ordering defendant to reimburse the county for the cost of his public defender without determining his ability to pay. Defendant was convicted of second degree robbery. The trial court erred by ordering him to pay $1,185 to reimburse the county for his public defender without first evaluating his ability to pay. The defendant’s failure to object did not forfeit the reimbursement order where defendant was not provided the proper notice regarding the order. Remand for an ability to pay hearing was not required where there was no evidence that he had been paid regularly for prison jobs. Even if he had secured a paying job in the prison, it’s unlikely that he has accumulated enough assets to reimburse the county for counsel.id: 26159
The failure to object to the lack of findings on ability to pay fines did not forfeit the issue, but there was no harm given defendant’s past and present earning capacity and the low amount of the fines.Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing fines and fees without making a finding regarding his ability to pay. Contrary to the prosecution’s claims, the issue was not forfeited due to the lack of an objection in the trial court since the ruling required such a finding published in People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, was not reasonably foreseeable. However, no hearing was necessary given defendant’s past earnings capacity, his current prison job and the fact the he has eight years to pay off the $370 obligation.id: 26180
Failure to object to ability to pay fees on Duenas grounds did not forfeit the issue on appeal. Defendant argued that under People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the assessments and fees imposed by the trial court should be reversed due to the lack of a hearing on his ability to pay. Contrary to the prosecutor’s argument, the issue was not forfeited for lack of an objection where Duenas had not yet been decided at the time of defendant’s sentencing, and it was not something he could reasonably have anticipated. The matter was remanded for a hearing on defendant’s ability to pay the fines, fees and assessments imposed by the court.id: 26120
Imposing fees and fines on an indigent defendant without considering ability to pay is unconstitutional as it punishes the person for being poor.Defendant, an indigent and homeless mother of young children, pleaded no contest to driving with a suspended license. The trial court placed her on probation, imposed $220 in fees and fines, and ordered that if not paid by the expiration of her probation period, the debt would go straight to collections. However, imposing the fees and fine without considering defendant’s ability to pay violates state and federal constitutional guarantees because it simply punishes her for being poor.id: 26036
The trial court erred by imposing the probation supervision fee without first determining defendant’s ability to pay.The trial court erred by imposing the probation supervision fee without first determining defendant’s ability to pay. It was for the court, not the probation officer to make the determination.id: 25967
Because lab and drug program fees must be imposed for transporting a controlled substance, they must also be imposed for a conspiracy to transport a controlled substance. Imposing a criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health and Safety Code section 11375.5, subd.(a)) and drug program fee (section 11372.7(a)) is appropriate for a conviction of conspiracy to transport a controlled substance in violation of section 11379(a). Because the fees must be imposed for a conviction of transporting a controlled substance, they must also be imposed for a conspiracy to transport a controlled substance.id: 25655
The trial court erred by imposing the $50 lab analysis fee for an offense not listed in section 11372.5, subd.(a).Defendant pled no contest to possession of a controlled substance while armed with a firearm in violation of Health and Safety Code section 11370.1, subd.(a). But that offense is not an enumerated crime listed in Health and Safety Code section 11372, sub. (a), and as a result the court could not impose the $50 lab analysis fee.id: 25040
The trial court erred by imposing a probation investigation fee without considering defendant’s ability to pay the fee.The trial court erred by imposing a $200 probation investigation fee under Penal Code section 1203.1 without considering defendant’s ability to pay. id: 24639
Crime lab and drug program fees were not “fines” and therefore were not subject to additional penalty assessments.Defendant was convicted of possessing and transporting illegal drugs. The trial court ordered (among other things) that defendant pay two mandatory fees - a $50 crime lab fee (Health and Safety Code section 11372.5) and a $150 drug program fee (section 11372.7) These fees are not penal in nature and therefore not subject to the additional penalty assessments the court imposed.id: 25361
The drug testing fee was an improper probation condition where defendant was not convicted of a drug-related offense.The plain meaning of Penal Code section 1203.1 ab authorizes imposition of a drug testing fee only when a probationer has been convicted of a drug-related offense. It was improper in the present case where defendant was convicted of the unlawful possession of ammunition even though drugs were found in the house.id: 25336
The trial court erred by imposing a penalty assessment on fees imposed under the Health and Safety Code.Defendant was convicted of possession for sale of methamphetamine. Because the criminal laboratory analysis fee (Health and Safety Code section 11372.5) and the drug program fee (Health and Safety Code section 11372.7) are nonpunitive, the trial court erred by imposing penalty assessments on those fees.id: 25302
The trial court erred by ordering the defendant to pay attorney fees without a finding that he had the ability to pay. Defendant was convicted of identity theft and felony drug possession. The sentencing court erred by ordering that he pay $500 for attorney fees under Penal Code section 987.8, without first determining that he had the ability to pay. The matter was remanded for a determination on ability to pay.id: 25303
Defendants resentenced under Prop 47 can use excess custody credits to reduce applicable punitive fines.In People v. Morales (2016) 63 Cal.4th 399, the court held that Penal Code section 1170.18, subd.(d) does not allow excess custody credits to reduce the one-year parole period. However, people who are resentenced under Prop 47 can use excess custody credits to reduce punitive fines.id: 25027
The trial court erred by failing to specify the statutory basis for the fines and fees it imposed.The trial court erred by failing to specify the statutory basis for the $704 fines and penalty assessments imposed on the defendant. This was a legal error at sentencing that could be reviewed even absent an objection in the trial court. The matter was remanded so that the trial court could specify the appropriate statutory basis for any fine, fee or penalty assessment that it imposes.id: 24767
Attempted robbery is not an enumerated offense for which a local crime prevention programs fine may be imposed.The trial court erred by imposing a $10 local crime prevention fine under Penal Code section 1202.5, subd.(a) because attempted robbery is not among the enumerated offenses for which a local crime prevention program fine may be imposed.id: 24773
The new court facilities fee does not apply to cases where the conviction was rendered before the effective date of the statute. The new $30-35 court facilities fee imposed by Government Code section 70353 does not apply to cases in which the defendant's conviction, by plea or jury verdict, was rendered before the Jan. 1, 2009 effective date of the statute. id: 21630
Section 1202.5 permits only one $10 fine regardless of the number of robbery-related convictions. Defendant was convicted of multiple robberies. The trial court erred by imposing more than one theft fine under Penal Code section 1202.5 because that provision permits the imposition of a single fine regardless of the number of robbery-related convictions. id: 23998
The juvenile court lacked authority to assess attorney fees against the minor.The juvenile court lacked the authority to assess attorney fees against the minor who was under 18 at the time of the offense and when counsel was appointed. id: 23614
The $50 lab analysis fee should have been imposed for the conviction on the drug count. Defendant was convicted of a drug offense and two other crimes. The trial court erred by imposing a laboratory analysis fee of $50 per count under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 for each offense, because the fine should only have been imposed for the drug offense. The trial court was also required to impose various penalty assessments in connection with that fee.id: 23663
The trial court erred by imposing certain fees without finding an ability to pay.The trial court erred by imposing a probation supervision fee without finding an ability to pay, and the record does not show the court made an implied finding. Defendant was not required to object in order to preserve the claim. Neither did the court find defendant had the ability to pay the drug fee program or the AIDS education fee. The matter was remanded for a hearing on defendant’s ability to pay.id: 23664
The no-contact with the victim order was unauthorized.After defendant was convicted of sexual assault and he was sentenced to prison, the trial court ordered that he have no contact with the victim. However, the no-contact order was not supported by any statutory authority and was not supported by any factual basis. It was ordered stricken.id: 22869
Trial court erred in failing to consider the defendant’s ability to pay fees in a case where he was sentenced to county jail under the Realignment Act, but the presumption that he lacks the ability to pay does not apply.Defendant was convicted of felony and sentenced to five years in county jail pursuant to the Realignment Act (Penal Code section 1170, subd.(h).) The trial court ordered him to pay $400 in attorney fees. However, it erred in doing so because it ordered the payment without making a determination of defendant’s ability to pay. Defendant further argued that he was entitled to the presumption that a defendant sentenced to state prison does not have the ability to pay costs, but the presumption does not apply to county jail sentences.id: 23093
Probation supervision fee does not apply to a defendant sentenced to mandatory supervision pursuant to section 1170, subd. (h). Penal Code section 1203.1B, does not authorize imposition of the probation supervision fee where defendant was not granted probation or given a conditional sentence, but was instead sentenced to serve a portion of his term on mandatory supervision under Penal Code section 1170, subd.(h).id: 23410
The trial court imposed an incorrect sex offender fine and erred by failing to list the relevant penalty assessments on the record and in the abstract of judgment. The trial court erred by imposing a $1,230 sex offender fine pursuant to Penal Code section 290.3 following defendant’s conviction for possessing child pornography because that was his first qualifying conviction under the statute and the amount should have been $300. While the court may have intended to add in some other penalty assessments, it erred by failing to clearly identify each one and specifically list them on the abstract of judgment. The court modified the fine to $300.id: 23398
The trial court erred in imposing a second court facilities assessment and a second court security fee when it revoked defendant’s probation. The trial court erred by imposing the $90 court facilities assessment and the $120 court security fee when it revoked probation because the court had already imposed them at the time it granted probation. id: 23442
The trial court erred by delegating to the probation department the analysis of defendant’s ability to pay the drug program fee.Defendant was convicted of a drug offense and as part of his sentence was ordered to pay a drug program fee of $570 pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7. However, the trial court erred by delegating the determination of defendant’s ability to pay the fee to the probation department. Moreover, the record does not support an implied finding of ability to pay.id: 23281
The court security fee and criminal conviction assessments should not have been made conditions of probation.The trial court erred by imposing the court security fee under Penal Code section 1465.8 and the criminal conviction assessment under Government Code section 70373 as conditions of probation. The fees should have been separately imposed. id: 22109
The alcohol and drug assessment fee under section 23649 can only be levied upon a fine that was imposed and collected. The trial court erred by imposing a $100 alcohol and drug assessment fee because, under Vehicle Code section 23649, it can only be levied upon a fine or penalty imposed and collected by the court. Here, the fine was imposed but not collected.id: 21625
The trial court erred by imposing various fines and fees without considering defendant’s ability to pay. The trial court erred by ordering the convicted defendant to pay various fees including $100 in attorney fees under Penal Code section 987.8, $259 criminal justice administration fee under Government Code section 29550, and a $64 per month probation fee under Penal Code section 1203.1b, without considering the defendant’s ability to pay. id: 21792
The trial court erred by imposing the $20 court security fee as a condition of probation. The trial court erred by imposing the $20 court security fee under Penal Code section 1465.8 as a condition of probation because the fee was collateral to defendant’s crimes and punishment, and as such, its payment could not be a condition of probation. id: 21793
The court erred by imposing a $300 fine under section 290.3, subd.(a) where the fine was $200 at the time of the sex offense.The imposition of the $300 fine under Penal Code Section 290.3, subd.(a) for failing to register as a sex offender violated ex post facto provisions because the fine was only $200 at the time of the sex offense. The fine was reduced to $200, subject to defendant’s ability to pay. However, the court increased the total defendant owed to $640 because the trial court failed to add the appropriate penalty assessments, state surcharge and state court construction penalty. id: 20887
Government Code section 76104.6 DNA penalties do not apply to a court security fee.No Government Code section 76104.6 DNA state - only penalty can be imposed on a court security fee. The imposition of the penalty was reversed and stricken.id: 20646
The sentencing court erred by failing to specify a statutory basis for the imposition of all fines and fees.The minute order from the sentencing hearing failed to specify the statutory basis of most fines and fees imposed by the court. The matter was remanded to identify the statutory basis of all fees, fines and penalties.id: 20335
A $10 crime prevention fee can only be imposed once per case.A $10 crime prevention fine under Penal Code section 1202.5, subd.(a) can be imposed only in a case, rather than for each conviction in a case.id: 19819
The court erred in imposing a fine under Penal Code section 672 since it had already imposed a fine under the Health and Safety Code.Defendant pled guilty to possession of cocaine base for sale. The court ordered a prison term and a fine under Health and Safety Code section 11372. The court then imposed a second fine under Penal Code section 672. The trial court erred in imposing the second fine since section 672 was intended to impose a fine only when no other statute does so. The failure to object to the second fine did not waive the issue since the fine resulted in the imposition of an unauthorized sentence for which an objection was unnecessary.id: 17112
The trial court must make an express finding of unusual circumstances before ordering a defendant to reimburse for the cost of a public defender.Before ordering a defendant to reimburse the county for all or part of the cost of his public defender, the court must make an express finding of unusual circumstances showing defendant's ability to pay.id: 18593
The trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay his legal fees without complying with notice and hearing requirements.The trial court erred in imposing an obligation to reimburse $12,600 in legal fees pursuant to Penal Code section 987.8 without holding a hearing on his ability to pay.id: 18964
The section 11372.5 lab analysis fee does not apply to persons convicted of conspiracy to transport or possess cocaine.Defendant argued the "criminal laboratory analysis fee" under Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 was improperly applied because he was convicted of conspiracy to possess and transport rather transportation and possession of the cocaine. While conspiracy to commit an offense may be "punished" in the same way as the substantive offense itself, the lab fee is not a punishment but rather a means to offset the administrative cost of testing the purported drugs.id: 18599
Evidence did not support the order requiring defendant to reimburse the public defender's office for costs incurred in representing her.The trial court erred by ordering defendant to reimburse the public defender's office in the amount of $9,200 for representing her. There was no evidence to support the county's position that the claimed $200 per hour represented the county's actual cost in representing the defendant or that she was able to pay the amount even though she had $5,000 equity in her house, was relatively employable at age 55, and attended college in the Philippines in the 1960's.id: 18854
The laboratory fee provided Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 may not be imposed in juvenile court proceedings.After finding the minor had committed a drug offense, the juvenile court imposed a $50 lab fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.5. However, that provision only applies to convictions, and a minor found to be a ward of the juvenile court has not been convicted of a criminal offense.id: 18933
Updated 3/7/2024Remand for ability to pay fines determination can be based on due process and equal protection grounds, and claims of excessive punitive fines can be reviewed under cruel and/or unusual punishment provisions.Defendants argued that under People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App. 5th 1157, the case had to be remanded to allow the trial court to determine his ability to pay certain fines and assessments before imposing them. Contrary to the prosecution’s claim, the objection by one defendant preserved the issue for both. Remand was appropriate and should be based in part on due process and equal protection grounds, except for claims of excessive punitive fines, which can be analyzed under the cruel and/or unusual punishment provisions of the state and federal constitutions.id: 26302
Updated 3/6/2024Defendant forfeited the issue of the lack of an ability to pay finding.Defendant argued under People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the trial court erred by imposing fines and fees without considering his ability to pay. However, the issue was forfeited where the defense failed to object or comment in any way when the court imposed the fines, fees and assessments.id: 26592
Updated 3/6/2024Defendants forfeited the Duenas issue and the failure to consider their ability to pay did not result in any constitutional violations. Defendants argued the trial court erred in failing to determine their ability to pay before imposing certain assessments. The issue was based on the holding in People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. However, defendants forfeited the issue by failing to address the ability to pay at the sentencing hearing. Moreover, Duenas was distinguishable as the defendants here could have avoided the present convictions regardless of their financial circumstances. Finally, there was no constitutional violation as defendants were not denied access to the court or the ability to present a defense, the assessments were not grossly disproportionate under the Eighth Amendment, and there was no equal protection issue.id: 26597
Updated 3/6/2024Court’s failure to consider ability to pay before imposing fines and assessments did not violate defendant’s due process rights.The trial court did not violate defendant’s due process rights by imposing assessments and fines without considering his ability to pay.id: 26650
Updated 3/5/2024Imposition of fines and assessments without considering ability to pay did to violate due process.Defendant argued that, following People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, a remand was required for the trial court to consider his ability to pay the fines and fees assessed at his sentencing. Contrary to defendant’s claim, due process does not bar the imposition of the fines and so a remand was not required.id: 26683
Updated 3/4/2024Trial court did not err in failing to determine defendant’s ability to pay the minimum restitution fine. Defendant argued the trial court failed to consider his ability to pay the restitution fine. However, unlike other fees that are not considered to be punishment, the court need not hold a hearing to determine a defendant’s ability to pay restitution fines.id: 26846
Updated 3/4/2024Defendant had ability to pay court facilities fee given his potential to earn while in prison. The trial court’s failure to determine defendant’s ability to pay the court facilities fee under Government Code section 70373 did not require remand, since defendant is serving a lengthy sentence, and he has the ability to earn money in prison that will allow him to pay the small fee.id: 26847
Updated 2/26/2024Case was remanded for an ability to pay hearing as to the court operations fee but defendant forfeited the challenge to the restitution fee.Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing a restitution fine and court operations and facilities fee without an ability to pay hearing. He forfeited the argument regarding the $10,000 restitution fine, but not as to the $840 in court operations and facilities fees. The case was remanded for an ability to pay hearing as to those fees.id: 26575
Updated 2/26/2024Imposition of court fees requires an ability to pay hearing, but imposition of a restitution fine does not.Defendant argued under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.5th 1157, that imposing court operations and facilities assessments, as well as restitution fines without considering defendant’s ability to pay required a remand. Imposition of the fees without giving defendant an opportunity to request an ability to pay hearing was unconstitutional, and the matter was remanded on that ground. However, an ability to pay hearing is not constitutionally required before the imposition of a restitution fine. id: 26864
Updated 2/26/2024Duenas issue was not cognizable on appeal where it had not been raised in the state court. Defendant argued on appeal that under People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the trial court erred by imposing certain fees and fines without considering her ability to pay. However, under Penal Code section 1237.2, the issue was not cognizable on appeal.id: 26388
Updated 2/26/2024Duenas was wrongly decided and imposition of fees and fines should be addressed under the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment. Defendant argued the trial court violated his rights to due process and equal protection by ordering him to pay certain fees, fines and assessments without finding he had the ability to pay those amounts. The arguments followed People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, but the court here found Duenas was wrongly decided and that defendant’s constitutional challenge should be based on the excessive fines clause of the Eighth Amendment rather than due process. Here, the fees and fines imposed were not grossly disproportionate to the conviction, and therefore not excessive under the Eighth Amendment.id: 26400
Updated 2/26/2024Defendant was required to litigate the Duenas issue in the Court of Appeal where his appeal included issues other than challenge to fees and fines.The trial court lacked jurisdiction under Penal Code section 1237.2 to address the imposition of fees and fines following People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, because defendant’s appeal raised other issues. Moreover, defendant forfeited his right to challenge the imposition of fees and fines by failing to object at sentencing. id: 26408
Updated 2/26/2024The Duenas court was wrong in finding that due process requires consideration of a defendant’s ability to pay certain fines and fees.In People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the court found that due process precludes a court from imposing certain fees and fines without considering defendant’s ability to pay them. However, Duenas was wrongly decided and due process does not require such a determination.id: 26419
Updated 2/26/2024The trial court did not err by imposing fees and fines without considering ability to pay where defendant told the court she could make the payment.The trial court did not err by imposing the assessments and restitution fine without first ascertaining her ability to pay them. She demonstrated her ability to pay the $150 community service registration fee by representing to the court that her boyfriend could come to court and make the payment, and by obtaining the $150 in the three weeks between the sentencing hearing and the notice of appeal.id: 26450
Updated 2/24/2024Imposing fees and fines without considering defendant’s ability to pay did not violate his due process rights.Defendant argued that his due process rights were violated when the trial court imposed fees and fines without considering his ability to pay. He relied on People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, but Duenas was wrongly decided and involves an issue that must first be addressed to the Legislature. Moreover, Duenas was factually distinguishable where defendant was not homeless and presented no compelling reason to justify a restitution fine waiver.id: 26632
Updated 2/24/2024The trial court lacked jurisdiction to grant the motion to correct the sentence that was filed after the appeal had concluded.After the defendant’s direct appeal had concluded, he filed a motion in the trial court seeking to modify his sentence by reducing the restitution fine based on his ability to pay. The trial court denied the motion and defendant appealed. Because the motion to modify the sentence was filed after the conclusion of the direct appeal and there was no other basis for trial court jurisdiction over the motion, the order denying it was nonappealable.id: 26638
Updated 2/22/2024Fares letters from appellate counsel to the trial court did not negate forfeiture of the Duenas issue after counsel failed to object in the trial court. Defendant argued his restitution fines were unconstitutional under Duenas because the court didn’t consider his ability to pay. The prosecution argued that defendant forfeited the issue by not raising the objection in the trial court. The fact that appellate counsel sent two letters to the trial court seeking to fix the problem (Fares letters) did not negate the forfeiture.id: 28099
Updated 2/22/2024Defendant forfeited his ability-to-pay challenge to the maximum restitution fine and other assessments.Defendant argued the trial court erred by failing to consider his ability to pay the restitution fine and assessments it imposed. However, he forfeited his challenge by failing to object on that basis during the sentencing hearing.id: 27050
Failure to object in trial court forfeited the challenge to fees and fines based on ability to pay.Defendant argued the trial court erred in failing to determine his ability to pay before imposing certain fines or fees. However, he failed to object in the trial court so the issue was forfeited. id: 26156
The section 1170.95 petitioning procedure applies to juveniles whose murder allegation was sustained by the juvenile court on a natural and probable consequences theory.Where the juvenile court has sustained a murder allegation in a natural an probable consequences theory, a juvenile may, pursuant to the provisions of Penal Code section 1170.95, petition the court to have the conviction vacated and the corresponding commitment recalled.id: 26181
Defendant forfeited his challenge to fees and assessments by failing to object based on his ability to pay.Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing various fines and fees without first affording him an ability-to-pay hearing under People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.4th 1157. However, defendant didn’t object to the fees and fines at the original sentencing hearing or on remand from his appeal. If he did not object based on ability to pay the $10,000 restitution fine, he could not complain about the remaining fees that were much less. In any event, the court found he had the ability to pay. id: 26226
Failure to object to the fines based on inability to pay forfeited the issue on appeal.Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing assessments and fines without considering his ability to pay. However, his trial counsel failed to object on this basis and he therefore forfeited the challenge on appeal. id: 26139
Trial courts should inquire into defendant’s financial circumstances before imposing a sexual offender fine, but trial counsel was not ineffective for failing to object.Defendant’s convictions of Penal Code sections 228, subd. (a) and 288.3 triggered the imposition of sex offender fines for each count pursuant to section 290.3. He argued on appeal that trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance by failing to object to the imposition of fines based upon his inability to pay. However, the record does not show why counsel failed to object, and there may have been valid reasons. Going forward, trial courts should inquire sua sponte into a defendant’s financial circumstances before imposing a sexual offender fine.id: 25934
Duenas does not apply to a mandatory minimum juvenile restitution fine.The minor argued that ordering him to pay the $100 restitution fine violated due process because the juvenile court did not determine whether he had the ability to pay such a fine. However, the ruling in People v. Duenas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 does not apply to a mandatory minimum juvenile restitution fine.id: 26613
The facilities assessment under Government Code section 70372 is inapplicable in a juvenile adjudication of wardship.The Government Code section 70372, subd.(a)(1) court facilities assessment is collected for criminal offenses but cannot be imposed against a juvenile ward.id: 24918
Criminal lab analysis fee under section 11372.5 is subject to additional penalty assessments. For each conviction of enumerated drug offenses, Health and Safety Code section 11372.5 imposes a criminal lab analysis fee not to exceed $50, and section11372.7 imposes a drug program fee not to exceed $150. The levy imposed under section 11372.5 constitutes a fine or penalty that is subject to penalty assessments imposed by Penal Code section 1464 and Government Code section 76000. The court did not reach the issue of the applicability of penalty assessments to the section 11372.5 drug program fee because the trial court did not impose that fee.id: 25266
The trial court did not err by imposing monetary penalties on top of the lab fee and drug program fee.Defendant pled guilty to possessing methamphetamine for sale. The court sentenced him to prison and imposed assessments for a laboratory fee (Health and Safety Code section 11372.5) and a drug program fee (section 11372.7). The trial court did not err by imposing the monetary penalties under Penal Code section 1464 and Government Code section 76000 on top of those fees. id: 25279
The trial court erred by simply suspending imposition of the drug program fee based on the lack of an ability to pay. The trial court imposed but suspended the Health and Safety Code section 11372.7, subd. (a) drug program fee, presumably because it found defendant lacked the ability to pay the fee. In that situation, the fee may not be imposed at all. id: 24772
Because defendant was not ordered to pay his $55 administrative fee in installments, it had to be reduced to $30.The trial court erred by imposing a $55 administrative fee on installment accounts under Penal Code section 1205, subd.(e). However, the record did not show defendant was ordered to pay his fines in installments. Therefore, the $55 fee imposed under section 1205, subd.(e) was unauthorized, and the fee was reduced to $30.id: 24641
The fines and fees were punitive in nature, and therefore properly imposed as conditions of probation.The penalty assessments, fines and fees were punitive and served to promote deterrence and retribution. The trial court therefore did not err by ordering the imposition of those fees and fines as conditions of probation.id: 24643
The $10 theft fine provided in section 1202.5 does not prohibit a fine under section 672 in a burglary case.The $10 theft fine provided for in Penal Code section 1202.5 does not “prescribe the fine for burglary” so as to prohibit the imposition of the fine described in section 672. id: 24279
Defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the facts considered by the court when imposing a restitution fine above the statutory minimum.Defendant argued that since his $10,000 restitution fine was above the statutory minimum, he was entitled to a jury trial on the facts the court relied on to impose the fine. However, defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the Penal Code section 1202.4(b)(1) fine because it was imposed within the statutory range based on the nine counts of aggravated sexual assault.id: 24141
The trial court may consider a defendant’s future ability to pay when considering reimbursement for a victim’s medical exam.Defendant argued the trial court erred by ordering him to pay for the victim’s medical examination pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1 h, subd.(b) because there was no evidence of his ability to pay. Contrary to defendant’s claim, this is unlike the provision governing the repayment of legal fees and the trial court is not limited to considering a defendant’s present or immediate future financial situation in deciding his or her ability to pay. The court did not err by finding defendant had the ability to pay as defendant will be in his early 30s when released and will likely be able to gain employment.id: 24120
Defendant’s failure to challenge fees imposed at sentencing in the trial court precluded him from doing so on appeal.The appellate forfeiture rule applies to challenges to fees imposed at sentencing, here probation-related costs and an order for reimbursement of the fees paid to appointed counsel. Defendant’s failure to challenge the fees in the trial court precluded him from doing so on appeal.id: 23945
Defendant forfeited the challenge to probation supervision and presentence investigation fees by failing to challenge them in the trial court.The sentencing court ordered that defendant pay probation supervision and presentence investigation fees under Penal Code section 1203.1 b, which prescribes specific procedures for the imposition of such fees. Defendant’s failure to challenge the order in the trial court prevented him from doing so on appeal.id: 23946
Defendant forfeited his challenge to the booking and attorney fees by failing to object and he was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of his ability to pay. Defendant challenged the trial court’s imposition of booking and attorney reimbursement fees. However, he forfeited the issues by failing to object in the trial court. Moreover, because these fines were administrative and not criminal fines defendant was not entitled to a jury determination on the issue of his ability to pay and the actual cost to the county for booking and his court-appointed attorney.id: 23536
Defendant forfeited the issue regarding inability to pay fees by failing to object in the trial court. Defendant argued at sentencing that the trial court erred by imposing various fees, including attorney fees, without making the requisite finding of ability to pay. However, defendant forfeited the issue by failing to object on that basis in the trial court.id: 23341
Defendant forfeited the issue of sufficiency of evidence to pay probation fees by failing to object in the trial court.Defendant argued the evidence was insufficient to show he had the ability to pay the $736 presentence investigative report fee and the $164 per month probation supervision fee. However, defendant forfeited this contention by failing to object to the imposition of those fees in the trial court.id: 23342
Defendant forfeited the argument that he lacked the ability to pay the $10 fine by failing to raise the issue in the trial court. Defendant argued the court erred by imposing the $10 crime prevention fine mandated by Penal Code section 1202.5 without finding he had the ability to pay. However, defendant forfeited the issue by not raising it in the trial court.id: 23353
Defendant cannot challenge the booking fee for insufficient evidence of ability to pay without raising the issue at the sentencing hearing.A defendant who failed to object that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of his ability to pay a booking fee when the court imposed it has forfeited the right to challenge the fee on appeal. id: 23161
The trial court erred by failing to consider the defendant’s ability to pay the mandatory drug program fee and the fines that go with it.Defendant was convicted of possessing methamphetamine. The trial court imposed certain fees at sentencing but made no mention of the mandatory drug program fee described in Health and Safety Code section 11372.7, subd.(a). There is an exception where the defendant lacks the ability to pay. It is presumed that the court found the defendant had the ability to pay the $150 fee but, there are other penalties that accompany the fee that raise the total to $540. The fee was reversed and after the remittitur issues the trial court must determine whether defendant has the ability to pay the entire amount.id: 23071
Court facilities and operations assessments are mandatory and can be corrected on appeal, and a defendant who serves too much time in custody is not entitled to a reduction.Penal Code section 1465.8 provides for a court operations assessment and Government Code section 70373 provides for a court facilities assessment. Defendant argued that because the fees are nonpunitive they were not part of his sentence that could be corrected on appeal. However, the assessments are required and may be corrected on appeal. Moreover, a defendant who is overpenalized by serving more time than his sentence required is not entitled to a reduction of the assessments.id: 22896
The trial court was required to impose court facilities and security fees for each count of conviction including the counts stayed under section 654.The trial court was required to orally impose a $40 court security fee and a $30 court facilities assessment as to each of the four counts of which defendant was convicted, including the two stayed counts.id: 22978
Booking fee does not violate equal protection due to the lack of an ability to pay requirement. Defendant challenged the imposition of a $129 “criminal justice fee” under Government Code section 29550.1, also known as a “booking fee.” His failure to object in the trial court did not preclude review where the court found it is a legal issue that is being frequently raised. The provision does not violate equal protection principles even without an ability to pay requirement because defendant was not similarly situated to the local arrestees to whom he compared himself. Moreover, the statute does not require a finding by the sentencing court of the actual costs in which the fee originated.id: 22731
Booking fee does not require an evidentiary hearing to determine the amount or a finding on ability to pay. The trial court was not required to find an ability to pay before imposing a booking fee under Government Code section 29550.2. Moreover, section 29550 does not require an evidentiary hearing in the trial court to determine the amount of the fee.id: 22761
The trial court was not required in open court to specify the amount of the assessments, surcharges and penalties that accompany the fines.The trial court imposed a $500 fine under Penal Code section 290.3 “plus penalty assessments” without specifying the amount. However, the fine at the time of the offenses was only $300 and so the fine imposed was reduced to eliminate ex post facto problems. Contrary to defendant’s claim, the trial court was not required to specify the amount of assessments, surcharges and penalties.id: 22489
Defendant forfeited his challenge to the jail booking fee by failing to object at sentencing.Defendant argued there was no evidence to support a finding of his ability to pay the $270 jail booking fee. However, defendant failed to object to the jail booking fee in the trial court and the issue was forfeited. id: 22107
Probation report fee was authorized even though defendant was sentenced to prison.Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing the probation report fee under Penal Code section 1203.16 because he was sentenced to prison and not granted probation. However, the fee was authorized, as it applies to any case resulting in a conviction whether or not probation is ordered by the court.id: 22381
Lab analysis fee should have been imposed but stayed for the drug conviction that resulted in a stayed sentence under section 654.Defendant was convicted of possession for sale of heroin in count one, and sale of heroin in count two. The sentence for count one was stayed under Penal Code section 654. The trial court imposed the Penal Code section 11372.5 $50 criminal laboratory analysis fee only as to count two. However, both counts were subject to the lab analysis fee, and the court should have imposed an additional laboratory analysis fee, as well as penalties and surcharge. But the lab fee constitutes punishment and must be stayed under section 654 after being imposed, even though the Penal Code section 1465.8 court security fee was correctly imposed on the stayed count. id: 21985
The trial court properly imposed the $20 court security fee even though the conviction predated the effective date of the fee provision. Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing a $20 court security fee under Penal Code section 1465.8 because the fine provision was not enacted until after his conviction. However, the fee is not punishment and it may be imposed at sentencing even though the conviction occurred before the effective date of the fee.id: 22458
Various fines and fees may not be stayed when defendant is placed on Prop 36 probation. When a defendant is placed on Prop 36 probation, the court facility assessment (Government Code section 70373), restitution fine (Penal Code section 1202.4) and court security fee (Penal Code section 1465.8) may not be stayed.id: 21961
The county’s lien against defendant’s house did not obviate the need for the trial court to determine whether defendant had the financial ability to reimburse the county’s expenses.During trial, defendant executed a promissory note, secured by a lien against her house, agreeing to reimburse the county for costs incurred in her defense. After trial, the county sought reimbursement from the proceeds of the sale of the house. Although the trial court held a hearing to determine the amount to be reimbursed, it refused to consider whether defendant had the “present ability” to repay the costs as required by Penal Code section 987.8(b). However, the court’s lien did not obviate the need for the trial court to determine whether defendant had the financial ability to reimburse the county’s expenses. The matter was remanded for a necessary hearing. id: 21941
“Court facilities” fee applies to all criminal offenses, and is not punishment for ex post facto purposes.Defendant was convicted of several counts of lewd acts against children. He argued the court erred at sentencing by imposing a $30 “court facilities” fee under Government Code section 70703 because that statute only applies to Vehicle Code violations. However, the provision applies to all “criminal” offenses even though that term is defined to include traffic offenses. Moreover, even though the provision was enacted after defendant’s offenses, its application did not violate ex post fact principles because it attaches upon conviction and not commission of an offense, and it is not punishment. id: 21865
The $10 assessment under section 1202.5(a) was not a restitution fine to which no further assessments could be added. Defendant argued that because Penal Code section 1202.5, subd.(a) on its face provides for a fine of $10, the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing additional penalty assessments. However, contrary to defendant’s claim, section 1202.5, subd.(a) is not a restitution fine to which no further assessments may be added. The other fees and fines which should have added another $55 were mandatory and defendant was not entitled to a hearing on his ability to pay that small amount.id: 21699
Court facilities assessment can be imposed where the crimes occurred before the statute’s effective date.Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing a $30 assessment under Government Code section 70373 because the crime occurred before the effective date of the statute. However, the date of the conviction, not the date of the crime, controls the application of the statute.id: 21664
The date of the conviction, not the date of the crime, control the application of the section 70373 court facilities assessment.Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing the $30 court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373, because the crimes occurred before the effective date of the statute. However, the provision is not punitive and it applies in cases where the offenses were committed before its effective date but the convictions occurred after the effective date.id: 21736
The $30 court construction fine was properly imposed even though it was enacted after the commission of the crime where the conviction occurred after the statute's operative date. Defendant argued the trial court erred by imposing the $30 criminal conviction assessment (Govt. Code section 70373), not because it violated ex post facto principals, but because the statute was enacted after the dates of his crimes. However, there was no error because defendant's conviction occurred after the statute's operative date.id: 21478
The imposition of the court facilities fee to crimes committed before the statute was enacted does not violate the ex post facto provisions.The imposition of the $30 court facilities assessment mandated by Government Code section 70373 for crimes committed before the enactment of the statute does not violate the state and federal prohibitions against ex post facto laws because the assessment does not constitute punishment and is not so punitive as to override the Legislature's intent.id: 21481
The trial court properly imposed a restitution fine under section 1202.4, subd.(b) and a 10 percent administration fee under section 1202.4, subd.(l). In People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, the court held that when, as a condition of probation, a defendant is ordered to pay “restitution to the victim or the Restitution Fund” under Penal Code section 1203.1, subd.(b), an administrative fee of up to 10 percent of the amount may be imposed to cover the cost of collecting restitution to be made to the victim (section 12031, subd.(l)) but not when the payment is to be made to the Restitution Fund. Eddards does not preclude a court from imposing a 10 percent administrative fee to cover a county’s cost of collecting a “restitution fine” under section 1202.4, subd.(l) ordered pursuant to section 1202.4, subd.(a)(3)(A)id: 20986
The section 1202.05, subd.(a) fine is subject to the additional penalty assessments, fines and surcharges.The Penal Code section 1202, subd.(a) fine which, subject to the defendant’s ability to pay, must be imposed principally in theft related cases, is subject to additional penalty assessments, the state surcharge, the state court construction penalty and the two DNA penalties. id: 21226
The trial court erroneously imposed $200 for a sex offender fine that required $300 so the matter was remanded to determine whether defendant had the ability to pay $300.Defendant was convicted of three counts that required imposition of sex offender fines under Penal Code section 290.3. The provision calls for a fine of $300 for the first conviction and $500 for each subsequent conviction. The trial court ordered one fine of $200. The sentence was unauthorized and therefore the prosecutor's failure to object did not forfeit the issue. The matter was remanded to allow the court to impose a $300 fine for the first conviction or determine defendant did not have the ability to pay. No fines were to be imposed for the other two convictions as the court impliedly found defendant did not have the ability to pay.id: 20211
Inadequate notice regarding reimbursement of legal services was not prejudicial where the defendant was given some notice which alerted him to the possibility of deferred reimbursement.Defendant was not given proper notice regarding the potential liability for the costs of his legal representation pursuant to Penal Code section 987.8. However, he was not prejudiced by the defective notice since he was given notice sufficient to alert him to the possibility that he might have to pay for the attorneys fees and costs. Moreover, the failure to admonish him that an attorney fees order under section 987.8, subd. (f) would have the same force and effect as a civil judgment did not prejudice him because the fee order was not enforced in the manner of a civil judgment.id: 16114
Penal Code section 987.8 authorizes a court to direct payment of its attorney cost order from an identified source.Defendant argued the trial court erred in ordering the county to collect the reimbursement of legal services rendered to him from funds seized from him upon his arrest and held by the court. However, contrary to defendant's claim, Penal Code section 987.8 authorizes a court to direct payment of its attorney cost order from an identified source.id: 16116
Court of Appeal properly corrected the trial court's omission of the state and county penalties even though the prosecution raised the issue for the first time on appeal.Because the state and county penalties were mandatory under a proper construction of Penal Code section 1464 and Government Code section 76000, the Court of Appeal did not err in correcting the trial court's omission of the penalties even though the prosecution raised the issue for the first time on appeal.id: 16805
Court may order reimbursement for cost of preparing presentence probation report even where defendant is sentenced to prison.Defendant challenged the trial court's order that he reimburse the county for $358 in costs incurred in the preparation of the presentence probation report. He argued the order was unauthorized under Penal Code section 1213.1b because the statute does not apply to cases in which a defendant is sentenced to state prison. However, the legislative history indicates the statute was meant to apply to all cases, including those in which a defendant is sentenced to state prison.id: 17128
Appellate court could impose $50 laboratory fee that was mandatory and not addressed by the parties in the trial court.The trial court erred by failing to impose a $50 laboratory analysis fee that accompanied defendant's drug possession conviction. The fee was mandatory and there was no requirement of a finding that defendant had the ability to pay, and no objection by the prosecutor was required. The additional fee (along with $85 in penalty assessments) did not violate the plea agreement for lack of notice to the defendant since the amount was not significant. Moreover, since the fee was mandatory, the failure to impose it rendered the sentence unauthorized, and allowed correction by the appellate court.id: 16741
Court does not lose jurisdiction after six months to remand for a hearing on defendant's ability to repay cost of legal fees provided him. Penal Code section 987.8, subd.(b) provides that, upon the conclusion of criminal proceedings, the trial court may determine defendant's ability to reimburse the cost of legal services provided him. The provision requires notice to defendant and a hearing. The reimbursement order in the present case violated section 987.8, subd.(b) because it was made without the requisite notice and hearing. Defendant argued the remand order was erroneous because it was made more than six months after the judgment was pronounced. Contrary to defendant's claim there is no six month time line on the power to remand for purposes of a reimbursement order.id: 17387
A section 1203.4, subd.(c) fee may be imposed only after the court determines petitioner has the ability to pay, and the court may order payment on all or part of the fee.Penal Code section 1203.4, subd.(c) states that a person who petitions for a change of plea or to set aside a verdict under section 1203.4 may be required to pay the actual cost of services rendered by the county at a rate determined by the board of supervisors. The fine may be imposed only after the court determines the petitioner has the ability to pay without undue hardship and exercises discretion to order payment. The clerk cannot impose the fee at the time of filing. Moreover, the court may require all or part of the fee predetermined by the board of supervisors and need not determine the actual cost of services rendered for each petition. Finally, no individual hearing is required to determine each petitioner's ability to pay.id: 17344
Defendant must object at sentencing to issue of noncompliance with probation fee procedures to preserve the issue for appeal.A defendant's failure to object at sentencing to noncompliance with the probation fee procedures of Penal Code section 1203.1b waives the claim on appeal, consistent with the general waiver rules.id: 17183
The trial court erred by failing to impose some mandatory new monetary penalties and surcharges.Defendant pled guilty to various drug and firearm related offenses after the denial of his suppression motion. In sentencing defendant, the trial court erred by failing to impose the $50 drug laboratory analysis fee (Health and Safety Code section 11372.5) plus penalty assessments of $50 (Penal Code section 1464) and $35 (Government Code section 76000). In addition, the drug laboratory analysis fee is also subject to a 20 percent state surcharge of $10 (Penal Code section 1465.7) and the State Court Facilities Construction Fund (Government Code section 70371). The case was remanded to determine the amount of the court facilities surcharge.id: 17865
Once the section 290.3 sex offender fine is imposed the court must also impose the section 1464 and Government Code section 76000 penalty assessments.Defendant was convicted of several sex offenses. He was sentenced to prison, and the court additionally imposed a Penal Code section 290.3, subd.(a) sex offender fine. Once the sex offender fine was imposed, the trial court was duty bound to impose the additional section 1464, subd.(a) and Government Code section 76000, subd.(a) penalty assessments. The failure to impose the penalty assessments was jurisdictional error which could be raised for the first time on appeal.id: 17821
Court security fee provision may be applied retroactively and such application does not violate ex post facto concerns. Penal Code section 1465.8, subd. (a)(1) requires imposition of a $20 court security fee following every criminal conviction. The provision may be applied retroactively and imposition of the fee for a crime committed before its effective date does violate ex post facto principles.id: 19987
The minor lacked standing to challenge the order requiring that his parents reimburse the county for the costs of his care and maintenance.The minor argued the order requiring that his parents reimburse Tulare County for the costs and care of his maintenance must be stricken because the court made no finding of ability to pay. However, the minor lacked standing to challenge the order.id: 20018
The Penal Code section 654 stay for the second count did not preclude the court from imposing a $20 court security fee for that conviction.A $20 court security fee pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.8 must be imposed based on a conviction for which punishment has been stayed under section 654.id: 19818
Penalty assessment and surcharge provisions do not apply to restitution fines.The prosecution argued the trial court erred by not imposing penalties and surcharges for the $200 restitution fine. However, pursuant to recent legislation, the penalty assessment and surcharge provisions do not apply to restitution fines.id: 20213
New law regarding state court construction penalty was applied to defendant's case.Senate Bill 425, signed into law on October 5, 2007, applied to the present case. The bill affected the calculation of the Government Code section 70372, subd.(c) state court construction penalty. Under the law, the amount allocated to the fund varies according to county. In Los Angeles County, where defendant's Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subd.(a) lab fee was $50, the state court construction penalty added was $15. Moreover, the lab fee was also subject to a 20 percent state surcharge under Penal Code section 1465.7 for an additional $10.id: 19948
The trial court erred in imposing a single $20 court security fee for a defendant who was convicted of four counts.Defendant was convicted of four offenses but the trial court imposed a single $20 court security fee under Penal Code section 1465.8. However, that provision required a $20 fee for each conviction.id: 20212
The court security fee does not just apply to Vehicle Code violations.The court security fine described in Penal Code section 1465.8, refers to Vehicle Code violations, but applies to other criminal offenses as well.id: 18938
On a silent record, the failure to impose a drug program fee under section 11372.7 was not a jurisdictional error.On a silent record, there is no jurisdictional error in failing to impose a drug program fee pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11372.7, subdivision (a). However, a jurisdictional error was committed in imposing a criminal laboratory analysis fee in an amount in excess of that authorized by Health and Safety Code section 11372.5, subdivision (a). Finally, the trial court was required to impose penalty assessments pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (a)(2), 1464, and Government Code section 7600 in connection with the criminal laboratory analysis fee. The abstract of judgment should reflect the fines, fees, and assessments.id: 16115
Section 987.8 does not prohibit consideration of reimbursement for legal costs as part of the sentencing process.At sentencing the court ordered reimbursement of the costs of court-appointed counsel. Defendant challenged the order arguing that he was entitled under Penal Code section 987.8 to a separate hearing on the issue. However, section 987.8 does not contain any language either mandating a separate hearing or prohibiting consideration of reimbursement for legal costs as part of the sentencing process.id: 13386
Separate hearing on defendant's ability to pay probation costs was not required.Defendant argued that an order requiring him to pay probation costs was invalid because the court failed to make a determination of his ability to pay such costs as required by Penal Code section 1203.1b. However, at sentencing the court found defendant had the ability to repay probation costs given his monthly income prior to incarceration and the lack of support or other obligations. Section 1203.1b permits but does not require a separate hearing on defendant's ability to pay probation costs.id: 13390
About Pat Ford
Pat Ford is a criminal defense lawyer in San Diego who works on appeals in some of the most difficult cases around the state. He has a great record for success and integrity. Pat has also published a criminal case law digest since 1984 that's used by judges and lawyers around the state. He also speaks and writes articles for criminal lawyers as well as consumers interested in the law. The consumer-related articles are intended to be informative but do not constitute legal advice.
Case of the Day
The case of the day summarizes a current case and is viewed by lawyers and judges around the state every day.
Exclusion of 18-25 year-olds from the youthful offender provisions of section 3051 did not violate equal protection. Penal Code section 3051 establishes a parole eligibility hearing for juveniles convicted of special circumstance murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole. Excluding persons 18-25 from the youthful offender parole hearing provision did not violate equal protection principles.id: 27245