People v. Barney CA2/7, B299300

At ~1:00 a.m. deputies Serna and Fantom observed Noah Barney holding the driver-side door handle of a parked Honda Civic on a street known as a stolen-vehicle "hot spot." The vehicle was in a no-parking zone.
As the patrol car approached, Barney released the handle and began walking away; deputies pulled within 5–8 feet and asked if the car was his; Barney said he didn’t know who owned it.
Deputies detained Barney, conducted a patdown, and saw he held Honda keys; the keys opened the car and the VIN check showed the car was reported stolen. While outside the patrol car, a deputy overheard Barney spontaneously say, "I stole the car." Miranda warnings had not yet been given.
An inventory search of the Honda revealed a work ID with Barney’s photo; deputies then arrested him. Barney moved to suppress statements and evidence under Penal Code § 1538.5; the trial court denied the motion.
A jury convicted Barney of unlawfully taking/driving a vehicle (Veh. Code § 10851); he admitted a prior (Pen. Code § 666.5). He was sentenced to the upper term (4 years) and assessed various fines/fees (including court operations and criminal conviction assessments); Barney did not object at sentencing.
On appeal Barney argued (1) the detention was unlawful and suppression was required, and (2) the court violated Dueñas by imposing assessments without an ability-to-pay hearing. The Court of Appeal affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether deputies had reasonable suspicion to detain Barney (suppress evidence)	Deputies: detention justified by totality — late hour, hot-spot for stolen cars, no-parking zone, Barney testing door handle, immediate movement away, his answer that he didn’t know owner	Barney: holding handle and saying he didn’t know owner is, at most, a hunch insufficient for detention	Held: detention reasonable; specific articulable facts supported suspicion (citing Souza/Brown); patdown and ensuing evidence admissible
Whether fines/assessments required an ability-to-pay hearing under Dueñas and whether issue was forfeited	People: Dueñas was decided 20 days before sentencing; Barney forfeited by not objecting; remittitur timing irrelevant	Barney: Dueñas requires ability-to-pay hearing; challenge not forfeited because Dueñas was not final at sentencing	Held: forfeited. Because Dueñas was decided before sentencing, failure to object waived the claim; no exceptional circumstances to excuse forfeiture

People v. Brown, 61 Cal.4th 968 (California 2015) (standards for reviewing reasonable-suspicion stops and degree of suspicion needed)
Souza v. Superior Court, 9 Cal.4th 224 (California 1994) (upholding investigative stop where late-hour, high-crime area and evasive conduct supported detention)
In re Manuel G., 16 Cal.4th 805 (California 1997) (distinguishing consensual encounters, detentions, and arrests)
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1968) (Terry stop doctrine: reasonable suspicion standard for investigative stops)
People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held certain court assessments require an ability-to-pay determination to satisfy due process)
People v. Castellano, 33 Cal.App.5th 485 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (discussing when a Dueñas-based challenge may excuse forfeiture on appeal)