People v. Garrison CA6
H046358
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jul 15, 2021Background
- Defendant Steve Yoshun Garrison pleaded no contest to assault (§ 245, subd. (a)(4)) as part of a plea agreement; court suspended imposition of sentence and granted three years’ probation on June 1, 2018.
- At sentencing the court imposed a $300 restitution fine plus 10% administrative fee ($330 total), a stayed $300 probation-revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.44), various assessments and fees, and defendant did not object or request an ability-to-pay hearing.
- Probation was later revoked after a contested hearing (Aug. 13, 2018) and the court sentenced Garrison to two years in state prison, imposed the previously stayed probation-revocation fine, and directed the abstract to reflect the June 1, 2018 fines and fees.
- Garrison filed a pro. per. notice of appeal after the revocation (first appeal) and later, relying on People v. Dueñas, moved under Penal Code § 1237.2 (May 2019) to stay/strike the earlier-imposed fines and fees; the trial court denied relief except for staying the probation-revocation fine.
- Garrison filed a timely appeal from the May 28, 2019 order (second appeal). The Court of Appeal held it lacked jurisdiction to review the June 1, 2018 order because no timely appeal was filed from that order, and affirmed both the revocation judgment and the May 2019 order.
Issues
| Issue | Garrison's Argument | Attorney General's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether appellate court may review and strike/stay the fines and fees imposed June 1, 2018 | Dueñas + inability to pay require staying/striking fines and fees | Garrison failed to timely appeal the June 1, 2018 order; appeal is untimely | Court lacked jurisdiction to review the June 1, 2018 order because no timely notice of appeal was filed |
| Whether the trial court erred under Dueñas/due process/excessive-fines by imposing fines without an ability-to-pay hearing | Fines violate due process/excessive fines given inability to pay | If appeal were timely, AG conceded relief might be appropriate | Merits not reached because of jurisdictional defect; no relief granted on untimely challenge |
| Whether unauthorized-sentence doctrine or futility exception excuse untimely appeal | Exceptions should permit review given injustice/futility | Exceptions do not create jurisdiction or cure an untimely appeal | Exceptions inapplicable; they do not confer jurisdiction or cure untimeliness |
| Whether there were cognizable errors in the probation-revocation sentencing or the §1237.2 order denying relief | Appeals contest those post-plea matters | No cognizable error shown on those issues | Affirmed: no substantive challenge to the revocation judgment or the May 2019 order was raised (other than untimely challenge to June 1 order) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Ramirez, 159 Cal.App.4th 1412 (timely notice of appeal is essential; failure to timely appeal earlier order bars later challenge)
- People v. Mendez, 19 Cal.4th 1084 (untimely notice of appeal is fatal; appellate court lacks power to cure delay)
- In re Jordan, 4 Cal.4th 116 (untimely filing deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)
- People v. McKenzie, 9 Cal.5th 40 (order granting probation is deemed a final judgment for appealability under § 1237)
- People v. Chambers, 65 Cal.App.4th 819 (conviction is the triggering event for imposition of fines and assessments)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (ability-to-pay/due process analysis that prompted § 1237.2 motions)
- People v. Anderson, 9 Cal.5th 946 (scope of the unauthorized-sentence doctrine)
- In re G.C., 8 Cal.5th 1119 (limitations on using the unauthorized-sentence doctrine to cure appellate defects)