People v. McCullough
56 Cal. 4th 589
| Cal. | 2013Background
- McCullough pleaded no contest to felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, §12021, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a prior prison term; court imposed four-year aggregate sentence and a $270.17 jail booking fee.
- The booking fee issue centered on whether the court must determine ability to pay before imposing the fee under Government Code §29550.2(a).
- Defendant argued the ability-to-pay determination was required and that he could challenge the fee’s support on appeal even without a trial objection.
- Court of Appeal affirmed the booking fee order; Supreme Court granted review to resolve whether forfeiture applies to challenges to ability-to-pay.
- Court held that a defendant who fails to contest the booking fee when imposed forfeits the right to challenge its sufficiency on appeal; the fee determination is treated as a factual issue subject to forfeiture rules.
- The decision discusses the applicable statutory framework (Gov. Code §§29550, 29550.1, 29550.2) and emphasizes the de minimis nature of booking fees and limited procedural safeguards compared to other court costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to object preserves challenge to ability-to-pay | People contends rule of forfeiture applies | McCullough should be able to challenge sufficiency of evidence | Forfeiture applies; challenge not preserved on appeal |
| Is booking-fee ability-to-pay a legal standard or a factual question | Evidence sufficiency can be reviewed on appeal | Ability to pay is not a pure legal standard like probable cause | Imposition rests on factual findings; no de novo legal review without objection |
| Which government statute governs booking fee and who bears burden | Gov. Code §29550.2 governs; People bears burden | Procedural safeguards apply; defendant may contest | §29550.2 places burden on People; defendant forfeits otherwise successful challenge without objection |
| Can Butler-type review apply to booking fees | Butler allows review of sufficiency without objection | Butler is distinguishable; booking fee not analogous to probable cause | Butler does not apply; forfeiture applies to booking fees under this context |
Key Cases Cited
- Butler, 31 Cal.4th 1119 (Cal. 2003) (review of sufficiency of evidence for sentencing/ordering in absence of objection; exceptions for legal error)
- Welch, 5 Cal.4th 228 (Cal. 1993) (forfeiture of probation-conditions challenges on sentencing)
- Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (Cal. 1994) (forfeiture of sentencing challenges; distinguishes factual vs. legal errors)
- Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (Cal. 2007) (forfeiture rule in constitutional rights; exceptions)
- Gibson, 27 Cal.App.4th 1466 (Cal. App. 1994) (sufficiency challenge requires objection at trial)