44 Cal.App.5th 828
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Quintel Adams faced two felony cases (case nos. C1511050, C1526753) and received negotiated no-contest pleas with formal probation in both matters.
- Defense counsel informed the court Adams was homeless and unemployed; the trial court declined to impose some fines but imposed various statutory assessments and probation fees in both matters.
- Adams later violated probation; the court revoked probation and sentenced him to state prison, ordering previously suspended probation-revocation and parole-revocation fines.
- On appeal Adams argued, relying on People v. Dueñas, that the trial court violated his federal due-process rights by imposing fines and fees without first assessing his ability to pay.
- The Court of Appeal concluded Dueñas was wrongly decided, declined to extend its rule, found no error in the trial court’s imposition of the fines and fees, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires a pre-imposition ability-to-pay determination before fines/fees (Dueñas) | No — no federal due-process right to a pre-imposition ability-to-pay finding for these non-incarcerative fines/fees | Yes — Dueñas requires courts to ascertain present ability to pay before imposing fines/fees | Court rejected Dueñas as wrongly decided; no such broad due-process rule; affirmed fines/fees. |
| Forfeiture of the ability-to-pay claim | Argument that claim was forfeited because sentencing occurred before Dueñas | Counsel preserved inability-to-pay arguments at sentencing | Court found no forfeiture; appellate review allowed. |
| Whether inability to pay is a "compelling and extraordinary" reason to waive restitution fine under §1202.4(c) | Statute limits waiver to compelling/extraordinary reasons; inability to pay is not one | Inability to pay should justify waiver or consideration | Court noted statutory text: inability to pay is not a compelling and extraordinary reason and Dueñas’ facts (compelling hardships) were distinguishable. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (held due process requires trial court to assess defendant's ability to pay before imposing certain fines/fees)
- People v. Hicks, 40 Cal.App.5th 320 (rejected Dueñas; upheld fines and fees; concluded Dueñas wrongly decided)
- In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100 (prohibits incarcerating defendants for indigent failure to pay when nonwillful)
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (right to appellate record for indigent defendants to secure access to appeals)
- People v. Santos, 38 Cal.App.5th 923 (panel applied Dueñas)
- People v. Aviles, 39 Cal.App.5th 1055 (rejected Dueñas)
- People v. Allen, 41 Cal.App.5th 312 (rejected Dueñas)