People v. Castro CA3
C090012
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Amber Castro was convicted by a jury of two counts of sending drugs into state prison (Pen. Code § 4573) and admitted two prior prison-term enhancements under former Penal Code § 667.5(b) based on prior burglary and auto-theft prison terms.
- The trial court imposed an aggregate 7-year sentence (including two one-year prior-term enhancements) and assessed fines/fees: $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4(b)(1)), $600 presentence investigation/report fee (§ 1203.1(b)), $60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code § 70373), and $80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8).
- Castro moved postjudgment to be resentenced on fines, arguing she lacked an ability-to-pay hearing; the trial court denied the motion.
- On appeal Castro argued (1) her prior-prior-term enhancements must be vacated under the retroactive application of Senate Bill No. 136, which narrowed § 667.5(b) to sexually violent offenses; and (2) the court erred by imposing restitution and mandatory assessments without an ability-to-pay hearing (relying on People v. Dueñas).
- The Court of Appeal agreed the § 667.5(b) enhancements must be stricken retroactively under the Estrada inference and modified the judgment to remove them; because the court had imposed the maximum term, no remand for resentencing was required.
- The court rejected Castro’s Dueñas-based attack on the restitution fine and mandatory assessments, holding Dueñas was wrongly decided and that such impositions do not violate due process; it analyzed the fines under the Excessive Fines Clause and found them not grossly disproportional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Retroactivity of SB 136 narrowing § 667.5(b) prior-prior-term enhancements | People: Amendments apply retroactively; therefore enhancements remain only for sexually violent prior terms (People agreed here). | Castro: SB 136 applies retroactively so her non-sexual prior prison terms are no longer eligible and enhancements must be vacated. | Court: Applied Estrada inference; struck the two § 667.5(b) prior-prior-term enhancements; no remand required because original sentence was the statutory maximum. |
| Requirement of an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing restitution fine and mandatory court assessments (Dueñas) | People: Defendant forfeited the Dueñas claim; even on merits the assessments are nonpunitive and any due process error would be harmless; excessiveness claim fails. | Castro: Trial court violated due process by imposing fines/assessments without an ability-to-pay hearing (relying on Dueñas); her post-sentencing motion preserved the issue. | Court: Rejected Dueñas reasoning; concluded no due process right to an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing these mandatory amounts; reviewed excessive-fines claim de novo and found fines/assessments not grossly disproportional; affirmed fines/assessments. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (ameliorative criminal laws presumed retroactive absent contrary legislative intent)
- People v. Lara, 4 Cal.5th 299 (Cal. 2018) (statutory interpretation and Estrada framework)
- People v. Nasalga, 12 Cal.4th 784 (Cal. 1996) (applying Estrada inference to mitigation of enhancements)
- People v. Buycks, 5 Cal.5th 857 (Cal. 2018) (when maximum sentence imposed, remand for resentencing not required)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held ability-to-pay hearing required before imposing certain assessments and restitution execution; court here rejects Dueñas)
- People v. Hicks, 40 Cal.App.5th 320 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (criticized Dueñas; held no due process right to ability-to-pay hearing for court assessments)
- People v. Aviles, 39 Cal.App.5th 1055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (rejected Dueñas and applied Excessive Fines Clause framework)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (excessive fines proportionality test)