39 Cal.App.5th 917
Cal. Ct. App.2019Background
- Defendant Axel Caceres and victim E.S.J. dated for ~7 years and share a child.
- Late at night Caceres came to E.S.J.’s apartment, threatened to kill her and said, “I will have chopped you up,” and was seen holding a knife point as he left.
- Caceres pleaded no contest to one count of criminal threats (§ 422); a separate count for violating a domestic violence protective order was dismissed per plea negotiations.
- At sentencing the court denied probation, sentenced Caceres to 16 months, and imposed a $40 court operations assessment, a $30 criminal conviction (court facilities) assessment, and a $300 restitution fine; the court also served a domestic violence protective order under Penal Code § 136.2(i)(1) barring contact or approach within 100 yards of the victim.
- On appeal Caceres challenged (1) the protective order as improper because his crime was not a "crime involving domestic violence," and (2) the imposition of assessments and the restitution fine without an ability-to-pay finding per People v. Dueñas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether criminal threats (§ 422) qualify as a "crime involving domestic violence" for § 136.2(i)(1) protective order | The People: threats against a person with whom the defendant had a dating relationship and a child constitute "domestic violence" under Family Code § 6211 (and Fam. Code § 6203/6320 definitions of abuse) | Caceres: § 422 lacks an imminence element required by Penal Code § 13700, so it is not a domestic-violence crime for § 136.2(i)(1) | Court: Affirmed protective order—criminal threats are "abuse" under Family Code § 6203/§ 6320 and thus domestic violence under Family Code § 6211, so § 136.2(i)(1) applies |
| Whether the trial court violated due process by imposing court assessments and a restitution fine without first determining ability to pay (relying on Dueñas) | The People/AG: Dueñas should not be extended broadly; ability-to-pay requirement is not automatic in all cases and Dueñas rested on extreme facts | Caceres: Under Dueñas, court must ascertain ability to pay before imposing assessments/fines | Court: Declined to extend Dueñas beyond its extreme facts; distinguished this case (offense not driven by poverty or causing cascading legal debt) and held no due process violation on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (held trial court must ascertain ability to pay before imposing certain assessments/fines; court here declined to extend that holding)
- People v. Ogle, 185 Cal.App.4th 1138 (2010) (Family Code § 6211 defines domestic violence more broadly than Penal Code § 13700)
- People v. Kopp, 38 Cal.App.5th 47 (2019) (counseled caution in broadly applying Dueñas)
- People v. Munoz, 31 Cal.App.5th 143 (2019) (analysis of legislative goals and reasonableness of fees/fines)
- People v. Gutierrez, 35 Cal.App.5th 1027 (2019) (critique of Dueñas reasoning on access-to-courts and due process)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (cannot revoke probation for inability to pay absent willfulness or alternative measures)
- In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100 (1970) (probation revocation for poverty issues)
- Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) (indigent criminal defendants cannot be denied appellate access for inability to pay transcript costs)
- Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971) (access-to-courts principles regarding indigent litigants)
- Hale v. Morgan, 22 Cal.3d 388 (1978) (due process standard for statutory penalties)