People v. Hicks, 40 Cal.App.5th 320

In November 2017 deputies responded to a 911 call and found Darrick Hicks asleep in an apartment; deputies observed signs (dilated pupils, high pulse, sweating, jaw clenching, agitation) consistent with stimulant use.
Deputies performed field sobriety checks, placed Hicks in handcuffs, and while escorting him he resisted by planting his feet, tensing, squirming, flailing and repeatedly kicking; officers restrained him with straps and a soft restraint chair; a paramedic corroborated stimulant-like symptoms.
Hicks was charged with three felony counts of resisting an executive officer (Pen. Code § 69) — one for each officer — and one misdemeanor for being under the influence of a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code § 11550).
A jury convicted on all counts; the trial court sentenced Hicks to three years of formal probation on the felonies, imposed time-served on the misdemeanor, and ordered assessments, a $300 restitution fine and a $150 drug program fee; Hicks did not object to the financial orders below.
On appeal Hicks challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence for the convictions and (2) the imposition of fines/assessments without an ability-to-pay finding under People v. Dueñas.
The Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions and rejected the Dueñas-based due process challenge, correcting the assessment arithmetic and leaving the financial obligations enforceable during probation.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for § 69 resisting convictions	Evidence (officers’ testimony, video) shows Hicks used force/violence resisting deputies while they acted lawfully	Hicks initially complied and later flailed helplessly; conduct lacked intent to resist or target officers	Convictions supported: flailing/kicking while ignoring orders constitutes resisting by force; knowledge and lawful officer action proved
Sufficiency of evidence for HS § 11550 (under influence)	Observable symptoms (dilated pupils, high pulse, sweating, jaw clench, inability to stay still) supported verdict without chemical tests	Must prove specific drug (meth) or require chemical testing	Conviction supported: statute permits proof by observable symptoms of being under influence of a controlled stimulant
Due process challenge under Dueñas to imposition of assessments/fine	Dueñas: court must ascertain present ability to pay before imposing court assessments and restitution fines	Imposing assessments/fine does not deny court access nor immediately incarcerate for indigence; Dueñas extends precedent improperly and conflicts with Antazo, Bearden, probation purposes	Rejected Dueñas here: no due process bar to imposing assessments/fine at sentencing; obligations may be enforced during probation and nonpayment later evaluated under existing standards

People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held trial court must ascertain present ability to pay before imposing certain court assessments and restitution fines)
In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100 (Cal. 1970) (declined to categorically bar imposition of fines/assessments on indigent offenders)
Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (cannot revoke probation or imprison for nonpayment caused by indigence absent lack of bona fide effort to pay)
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (U.S. 1970) (poverty does not excuse punishment; forbids inverse discrimination in punishment)
Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (due process may require waiver of appellate costs to preserve access to courts)
People v. Canty, 32 Cal.4th 1266 (Cal. 2004) (being under the influence may be proven by observable symptoms without chemical tests)
People v. Kopp, 38 Cal.App.5th 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (rejected Dueñas’ requirement of pre-imposition ability-to-pay hearing for punitive fines)
People v. Bernal, 222 Cal.App.4th 512 (Cal. Ct. App. 2013) (forceful resistance alone can satisfy § 69 even if not directed at a specific officer)