People v. Haynie CA3, C089306

Haynie pleaded no contest to attempted carjacking and admitted two prior serious felony convictions; plea included a stipulated 13-year term (3 years for the offense doubled by a strike + 10 years for two § 667(a) enhancements).
At sentencing the court found Haynie ``had the ability to pay'' a $1,000 restitution fine but ultimately imposed the $300 statutory minimum restitution fine and a corresponding $300 parole-revocation fine; the abstract of judgment also reflected a $40 court operations fee (§ 1465.8) and $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code § 70373).
Senate Bill No. 1393 (effective Jan. 1, 2019) authorized trial courts to exercise discretion under § 1385 to strike prior serious-felony enhancements for sentencing purposes.
Haynie appealed, arguing (1) remand is required so the trial court can decide whether to strike one or both prior serious-felony enhancements under SB 1393 and (2) the court violated due process by imposing fines/fees without an ability-to-pay hearing.
The Court of Appeal held (a) remand is required to permit Haynie to seek relief under SB 1393 and (b) Haynie’s due process challenge to the fees failed; the judgment was modified to impose the mandatory $40 and $30 assessments and otherwise affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a certificate of probable cause is required to seek retroactive relief under SB 1393 after a plea to a stipulated term	Certificate required to attack a stipulated sentence after plea	No certificate needed because claim seeks postplea relief under new law and does not invalidate the plea	Not required — People v. Stamps controls; no certificate needed
Whether remand is futile or defendant should be allowed to seek the court’s exercise of § 1385 discretion to strike prior serious-felony enhancements	Remand is futile because trial court said it would not grant probation and thus would not reduce sentence	Remand appropriate so defendant can ask court to exercise discretion; if court inclined to strike, People may withdraw from plea	Remand appropriate; if court is inclined to strike, prosecution may withdraw from plea (per Stamps)
Whether due process requires an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing court operations and conviction assessment fees	Forfeiture and/or Eighth Amendment arguments; imposition lawful without an ability-to-pay hearing	Due process (per People v. Dueñas) requires an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing those fees	Rejected Haynie’s Dueñas-based due process claim; fees upheld; judgment modified to reflect mandatory $40 and $30 assessments

People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Cal. 2020) (held defendants need no certificate of probable cause to seek retroactive relief under SB 1393 and directed remand procedure if court may exercise § 1385 discretion)
People v. Cuevas, 44 Cal.4th 374 (Cal. 2008) (explained certificate of probable cause requirement for postplea appeals)
People v. Buttram, 30 Cal.4th 773 (Cal. 2003) (distinguished attacks on plea validity from collateral postplea sentencing claims)
People v. Ellis, 43 Cal.App.5th 925 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (concluded remand is not necessarily futile after SB 1393 changed sentencing discretion)
People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (concluded an ability-to-pay hearing is required before imposing certain assessments)
People v. Kopp, 38 Cal.App.5th 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (review granted; agreed with Dueñas on need for ability-to-pay hearing for some assessments)
People v. Turner, 96 Cal.App.4th 1409 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002) (permitted modification of judgment to reflect mandatory assessment fees)
People v. Nelson, 51 Cal.4th 198 (Cal. 2011) (held objections to restitution fines must be raised in trial court to preserve appellate review)