People v. Dueñas
242 Cal. Rptr. 3d 268
| Cal. Ct. App. 5th | 2019Background
- Velia Dueñas, an indigent, homeless mother with disabilities, pleaded no contest to driving with a suspended license and was placed on 36 months summary probation.
- The trial court imposed a $150 restitution fine (Pen. Code § 1202.4), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code § 70373), and a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code § 1465.8), ordered jail time in alternative to payment, and said unpaid amounts would go to collections without further court order.
- Dueñas presented uncontested evidence of extreme poverty and requested an ability-to-pay hearing; the court waived prior attorney fees but deemed the two assessments mandatory and declined to consider inability to pay the restitution fine for purposes of imposition or collections.
- The superior court appellate division affirmed; the Court of Appeal accepted transfer and reviewed whether imposing these assessments or executing the restitution fine without an ability-to-pay determination violates constitutional due process/equal protection principles.
- The Court concluded that imposing assessments and executing restitution against an indigent defendant without inquiring into present ability to pay transforms revenue measures into punishment and is fundamentally unfair.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court facilities and operations assessments may be imposed without an ability-to-pay inquiry | Dueñas: assessments punish the poor and must be imposed only after an ability-to-pay hearing | People: assessments are statutory, non-punitive, and mandatory on conviction | Court: assessments under Gov. Code §70373 and Pen. Code §1465.8 cannot be imposed without determining present ability to pay (due process/equal protection) |
| Whether execution of a Penal Code §1202.4 restitution fine may proceed absent an ability-to-pay determination | Dueñas: execution of the restitution fine should be stayed until the People prove present ability to pay | People: statute requires imposing minimum fine and bars considering inability to pay when imposing it | Court: although imposition of the minimum fine is required, execution must be stayed unless/until the People prove present ability to pay |
| Whether inability to pay may be considered in imposing the minimum restitution fine | Dueñas: inability to pay is relevant to fairness and punishment; statute's bar is unconstitutional as applied | People: Penal Code §1202.4(c) forbids considering inability to pay when imposing minimum fine | Court: the statute requires imposition, but to avoid constitutional problems the court must stay execution until ability to pay is shown; courts should not convert inability into additional punishment |
| Whether failure to inquire about ability to pay violates federal and state constitutional protections | Dueñas: due process and equal protection prohibit punishing poverty; automatic civil enforcement creates debt traps | People: reliance on statutory mandates and distinction between criminal punishment and civil judgment | Court: due process and equal protection principles (Griffin/Antazo/Bearden line) require inquiry before imposing assessments or executing restitution fines on indigent defendants |
Key Cases Cited
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (constitutional principle of equal treatment in criminal process)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (States may not revoke probation or imprison solely for inability to pay absent willful failure to pay)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (imprisonment for unpaid fines that indigent cannot pay violates equal protection)
- In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100 (California: confinement for defaulted fines because of poverty is unlawful)
- Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (constitutional principles limiting poverty-based sanctions extend beyond imprisonment)
- Jameson v. Desta, 5 Cal.5th 594 (state law supports access-to-courts principle and relief for indigent litigants)
- People v. Alford, 42 Cal.4th 749 (fees/assessments characterized and interpreted in context of court funding)
- People v. Giordano, 42 Cal.4th 644 (distinction between direct victim restitution and restitution fines)