People v. Hopkins CA3
C092027
| Cal. Ct. App. | May 24, 2021Background
- Hopkins pleaded guilty to failure to appear and first‑degree burglary and admitted an out‑of‑custody enhancement.
- On May 27, 2020, the court sentenced him to an aggregate term of 6 years 8 months in state prison.
- At sentencing the court imposed monetary obligations: $300 restitution fine (§1202.4(b)); $300 parole‑revocation restitution fine (suspended) (§1202.45); $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code §70373); $40 court operations assessment (§1465.8); and a $10 theft fine (§1202.5).
- Hopkins did not object below and appealed, arguing under People v. Dueñas that the court violated due process, equal protection, and the Excessive Fines Clause by imposing fines/assessments without an ability‑to‑pay hearing; alternatively he claimed ineffective assistance for counsel’s failure to object.
- The Court of Appeal rejected the Dueñas‑based challenge and the ineffective assistance claim, held the $300 restitution fines were not excessive, and affirmed the judgment.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Hopkins’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether due process requires an ability‑to‑pay hearing before imposing court facilities/operations assessments and similar fines (Dueñas challenge) | Due process does not require a present ability‑to‑pay determination before imposing these assessments | Dueñas requires the court to determine ability to pay before imposing fees/assessments | Court rejects Dueñas; joins authorities holding no due‑process ability‑to‑pay hearing is required for these assessments |
| Whether $300 restitution fines violate the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause | The $300 fines are not grossly disproportional and therefore not excessive | $300 fines are excessive given Hopkins’s likely inability to pay | Court applies proportionality factors (Bajakajian framework) and holds $300 fines are not excessive |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to fines/assessments at sentencing | No reversible error; failure to object to a meritless claim is not ineffective assistance | Counsel was ineffective for not preserving ability‑to‑pay objection | Court finds no ineffective assistance because the underlying Dueñas claim is meritless (Kipp principle) |
| Whether the issue was forfeited by lack of objection at sentencing | Forfeiture may apply, but court may exercise discretion to address merits | Hopkins contends ineffective assistance preserves review | Court exercised discretion to reach the merits (did not rest on forfeiture) |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held trial court must inquire into ability to pay before imposing certain assessments)
- People v. Kopp, 38 Cal.App.5th 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (addressed Dueñas issues; Supreme Court granted review)
- People v. Aviles, 39 Cal.App.5th 1055 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (rejected Dueñas‑based due process requirement for assessments and applied excessive‑fines analysis)
- People v. Kingston, 41 Cal.App.5th 272 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (joined authorities rejecting Dueñas)
- People v. Kipp, 18 Cal.4th 349 (Cal. 1998) (failure to assert a meritless defense is not ineffective assistance)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (established proportionality factors for Excessive Fines Clause analysis)
- People v. Riel, 22 Cal.4th 1153 (Cal. 2000) (court may address forfeited issues when ineffective assistance claim is raised)