Harris v. Super. Ct.
C083669
| Cal. Ct. App. | Aug 9, 2017Background
- Harris pleaded no contest to misdemeanor corporal injury; other counts dismissed; probation with 45 days jail and fines initially imposed; restitution of $1,571.32 was ordered after a later restitution hearing.
- Appointed trial counsel filed a notice of appeal challenging the restitution order and a Judicial Council form requesting appointment of appellate counsel; the form only checked "Restitution" and described financial harms.
- The Appellate Division summarily denied appointment of appellate counsel based on the submitted form.
- Harris petitioned this court for a writ of mandate directing the Appellate Division to appoint appellate counsel; the People ultimately conceded appointment was required because the sentence included jail time and fines over $500.
- The court addressed the broader legal question whether a restitution order can constitute a "significant adverse collateral consequence" under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.851(a)(1)(A), requiring appointment of appellate counsel in misdemeanor appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a restitution order can be a "significant adverse collateral consequence" under rule 8.851 | Harris: restitution causes significant financial harm and civil enforcement consequences; thus appointment of counsel required | People: restitution is a direct consequence of a plea (not collateral) and therefore should not trigger rule 8.851 appointment | Court: restitution may be a significant adverse collateral consequence for purposes of rule 8.851 and can trigger appointment |
| Whether appointment was required here given forms omitted jail and fine info | Harris: even if restitution were insufficient, appointment required because sentence included jail and fines > $500 (argued later) | People conceded that omission notwithstanding, appointment required because sentence included jail and fines > $500 | Court ordered appointment (Appellate Division must vacate denial and appoint counsel) |
| Proper meaning of "collateral" in rule 8.851 — adopt plea-advisement definition? | Harris: rule should be read to cover consequences ameliorable by appeal, broader than plea-advisement collateralism | People: borrow "collateral" meaning from plea-advisement cases to exclude restitution | Court: rejects plea-advisement import; adopts meaning aligned with appellate mootness/collateral-consequence usage (harms ameliorable by appeal) |
| Whether $1,571.32 is "significant" under rule 8.851 | Harris: amount and enforcement mechanisms make it significant | People: implicitly disputed applicability but conceded on other grounds | Court: $1,571.32 is significant (over statutory $500 threshold) and, combined with civil enforcement and probation-violation risks, qualifies |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Gurule, 28 Cal.4th 557 (discusses direct vs. collateral consequences for plea advisements)
- People v. Walker, 54 Cal.3d 1013 (establishes restitution as a direct consequence in plea-advisement context)
- People v. Broussard, 5 Cal.4th 1067 (restitution constitutional mandate/history)
- People v. Valencia, 226 Cal.App.4th 326 (use of "collateral consequences" in mootness/appellate context)
- People v. Ellison, 111 Cal.App.4th 1360 (appeal not moot where conviction has disadvantageous collateral consequences)