People v. Johnson
247 Cal. Rptr. 3d 1
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant Tyrone Johnson was charged with kidnapping to commit another crime, forcible rape, and rape of an intoxicated person; jury convicted only on the rape-of-an-intoxicated-person count (Pen. Code, § 261(a)(3)).
- The jury acquitted Johnson of kidnapping and forcible rape; special kidnapping allegations were found not true.
- The trial court sentenced Johnson to the upper term of eight years in prison for the conviction.
- At sentencing the court imposed a $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code §1202.4(b)), a $40 court security fee (Pen. Code §1465.8), and a $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code §70373).
- On appeal Johnson raised multiple claims (instructional error, vagueness, prosecutorial misconduct, evidentiary error, ineffective assistance), and separately challenged imposition of the fines and fees without an ability-to-pay determination.
- The appellate court rejected the challenges to conviction (unpublished portion) and addressed the fines/fees (published portion), affirming judgment and rejecting Johnson’s ability-to-pay challenge on the record.
Issues
| Issue | Johnson's Argument | People/State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposition of restitution fine and mandatory court fees without an ability-to-pay finding violated due process | Johnson: Under Dueñas, court must hold an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing these assessments; failure to do so violates due process | People: Johnson forfeited the claim by not objecting at trial; statutes have long been routinely applied | Court: Forfeiture exception applies because Dueñas was not reasonably foreseeable; on the merits, Johnson is distinguishable from Dueñas and, even if error, harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because record shows ability to pay while incarcerated; affirmed |
| Whether Dueñas-style challenge is forfeited when not raised at trial | Johnson: Did not raise below; argues Dueñas change in law should excuse forfeiture | People: Forfeiture applies per prior precedent (Avila) | Court: Exception to forfeiture where change in law was unforeseeable; Dueñas was not reasonably foreseeable so appellate review allowed |
| Whether Johnson’s financial circumstances are analogous to Dueñas and warrant reversal or stay of fine execution | Johnson: Unable to pay; reliance on Dueñas facts of poverty and recurring penalties | People: Johnson had prior work, a cellphone, paid for a hotel the night of the offense, and will have prison wages; not similarly situated | Court: Not similarly situated; record supports ability to pay $370 over time in prison; any error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether restitution fine above statutory minimum would have altered forfeiture analysis | Johnson: N/A (challenge to imposed statutory-minimum fine) | People: Statutory scheme allows consideration of ability to pay for fines above minimum | Court: Notes distinction—if fine had been above the statutory minimum, forfeiture would likely bar the claim; here fine was statutory minimum so different consequence |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (held ability-to-pay hearing required before imposing certain assessments and stayed execution of restitution fines absent such a hearing)
- People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (2009) (forfeiture applies to challenges to restitution fines when not raised at trial)
- People v. Black, 41 Cal.4th 799 (2007) (exception to forfeiture where change in law was unforeseeable)
- People v. Castellano, 33 Cal.App.5th 485 (2019) (discussing predictability of Dueñas decisions)
- People v. Frandsen, 33 Cal.App.5th 1126 (2019) (addressing Dueñas-related issues)
- People v. Hennessey, 37 Cal.App.4th 1830 (1995) (defendant’s ability to earn prison wages may be considered in ability-to-pay analysis)
- Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) (harmless error standard)
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956) (due process principles cited re: access to justice)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983) (probation revocation for inability to pay violates due process under certain circumstances)
- In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100 (1970) (California due process precedent cited)