People v. Clark CA3
C091805
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jun 28, 2021Background
- Dillion Austin Clark pled no contest to distributing/showing pornography to a minor (Pen. Code, § 288.2(a)(2)).
- The court sentenced Clark to the upper term of three years and imposed $2,020 in fines and assessments (including $300 restitution fine, $300 suspended restitution fine, $500 sex-offender fine under § 290.3, $40 court operations, $30 conviction assessment).
- At sentencing the court stated it found "no ability to pay" in the pre-sentence report but announced and imposed the specific fines and fees in Clark’s presence.
- Clark did not object at the March 11, 2020 sentencing to the monetary orders or raise inability-to-pay/Dueñas arguments.
- Clark thereafter submitted letters under Penal Code § 1237.2 (June and August 2020) seeking correction; the trial court denied relief; Clark appealed.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding Clark forfeited his ability-to-pay and Dueñas-based challenges by failing to object at sentencing and that § 1237.2 did not rescue his claims because he was aware of the fines at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the sex-offender (§ 290.3) fine was wrongly imposed without regard to ability to pay | Forfeited — Clark failed to object at sentencing; inability-to-pay must be raised below | Trial court treated the § 290.3 fine as mandatory and did not consider ability to pay | Forfeited — failure to object at sentencing waives the claim |
| Whether imposition of other fines/assessments without an ability-to-pay hearing violated Dueñas and Clark’s constitutional rights | Forfeited — Clark did not raise Dueñas at sentencing, which came after Dueñas was decided | Dueñas requires an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing fines/assessments | Forfeited — normal appellate-preservation rules apply; Clark failed to preserve the Dueñas claim |
| Whether post-sentencing letters under § 1237.2 preserve Clark’s challenges | § 1237.2 only allows post-sentencing correction if defendant was unaware of the error at sentencing | Clark’s § 1237.2 letters should permit review because he later discovered the errors | Denied — Clark was present when fines and statutory bases were announced, so he was aware and § 1237.2 does not save the claims |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (holding courts must consider ability to pay before imposing fines that trigger constitutional concerns)
- People v. McCullough, 56 Cal.4th 589 (Cal. 2013) (failure to object forfeits appellate claims about inability to pay)
- People v. Gibson, 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 (Cal. Ct. App. 1994) (preservation required to challenge imposition of monetary obligations)
- People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994) (to preserve sentencing issues for appeal, defendant must raise them in trial court)
- People v. Nelson, 51 Cal.4th 198 (Cal. 2011) (challenge to restitution/fines forfeited by failure to object)
- People v. Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (Cal. 2010) (challenge to large restitution fine forfeited when not raised at sentencing)