People v. Duran CA4/1
D077346
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 13, 2021Background:
- Appellant Carlos Regino Duran was convicted in three San Diego cases and received a consolidated aggregate sentence of 13 years 4 months.
- The trial court imposed various fines, fees, assessments, and restitution as part of the sentences.
- On appeal Duran’s sole contention was that, under People v. Dueñas, the court violated due process and equal protection by imposing monetary obligations without first determining his ability to pay; he also briefly asserted ineffective assistance for not objecting.
- Duran did not raise the Dueñas-based challenge in the trial court at sentencing nor file a post-sentencing correction motion under Penal Code section 1237.2.
- The People argued the claim was forfeited and that the monetary penalties were lawful; the Court of Appeal concluded the appeal was not cognizable under section 1237.2 and dismissed the appeal.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Duran may raise a Dueñas challenge on appeal without having first presented it in the trial court | The People: claim forfeited under Penal Code §1237.2; monetary penalties were valid | Duran: Dueñas requires ability-to-pay hearing before imposing fines/fees; alternatively counsel ineffective for not objecting | Appeal dismissed as not cognizable under §1237.2 for failure to present the claim below; court did not reach Dueñas merits |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (held court must consider ability to pay before imposing certain fines and fees)
- People v. Jenkins, 40 Cal.App.5th 30 (2019) (discussed §1237.2 and appealability; review granted, dismissed and remanded)
- People v. Hall, 39 Cal.App.5th 502 (2019) (concluded §1237.2 broadly bars appeals that challenge fees not raised in trial court)
- People v. Alexander, 6 Cal.App.5th 798 (2016) (dismissed appeal for failure to raise sentencing fee challenge below)