48 Cal.App.5th 543
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant originally convicted of multiple counts; appellate court reversed convictions on two counts and remanded. On remand, defendant accepted a plea to first degree burglary and admitted a prior serious-felony conviction (§ 667(a)(1)).
- At plea and sentencing (Jan–Apr 2018) the court imposed a total 9-year prison term (4-year base term + 5-year prior serious-felony enhancement).
- The court also imposed a $5,000 restitution fine, a suspended $5,000 parole revocation restitution fine, court operations and criminal convictions assessments, and found defendant had no ability to pay appointed counsel fees.
- SB 1393 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) authorizes courts to strike prior serious-felony enhancements under section 1385 in the interest of justice; defendant argued SB 1393 applies retroactively and sought remand for the trial court to consider striking the 5‑year enhancement.
- Defendant also challenged the imposition of certain fees (under §§ 1202.4, 1465.8 and Gov. Code § 70373) on the ground the court did not determine his ability to pay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether remand is required so trial court can decide whether to strike the prior serious-felony enhancement under SB 1393 | AG: SB 1393 applies retroactively but remand would be futile because the court would not withdraw approval of the plea | Davis: SB 1393 applies retroactively; trial court should be allowed to exercise new discretion to strike enhancement | Remand would be futile; court would not have withdrawn plea approval, so no remand; enhancement stands. |
| Whether trial court erred by imposing fees/assessments without an ability-to-pay determination | AG: Defendant forfeited the challenge by failing to object at sentencing | Davis: Fees were imposed without an ability-to-pay inquiry (relying on Dueñas) | Claim forfeited for failure to object; court declines to revisit Aviles. |
| Whether a certificate of probable cause was required to raise the SB 1393 claim on appeal | AG: alternatively argues certificate required | Davis: urged relief without certificate | Court did not decide the certificate issue because remand would be futile. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Falco, 176 Cal.App.3d 1161 (1986) (trial court has exclusive province to accept or reject plea bargains)
- People v. Ames, 213 Cal.App.3d 1214 (1989) (court may not alter plea agreement by modifying individual components)
- People v. Segura, 44 Cal.4th 921 (2008) (same principle that plea terms cannot be unilaterally modified)
- People v. Jones, 32 Cal.App.5th 267 (2019) (discusses SB 1393 and retroactivity)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (held trial court must consider ability to pay before imposing some assessments)
- People v. Aviles, 39 Cal.App.5th 1055 (2019) (held ability-to-pay challenge forfeited if not raised at sentencing)