People v. Osuna CA6
H047900
| Cal. Ct. App. | Oct 29, 2021Background
- Defendant Enrique Osuna pleaded no contest (Nov 2019) to 29 second‑degree burglary counts, one attempted burglary, and one count of evading an officer; sentenced to 5 years 4 months (Jan 28, 2020).
- At sentencing the court initially imposed a $10,000 restitution fine (§1202.4) but, after defense relied on People v. Dueñas, struck that fine as beyond defendant’s ability to pay.
- The court nevertheless imposed smaller assessments: $10 (Pen. Code §1202.5), $1,240 court operations assessment (Pen. Code §1465.8), $930 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code §70373), and a $129.75 criminal justice administration fee (totaling $2,309.75).
- On appeal Osuna argued the court failed to hold an ability‑to‑pay hearing for those lesser amounts, violating Dueñas (due process) and the Eighth Amendment’s ban on excessive fines.
- The Court of Appeal found the record shows the trial court made an express ability‑to‑pay determination as to the lesser amounts, rejected the constitutional challenges (excessive‑fines claim forfeited and meritless), but vacated any unpaid balance of the $129.75 criminal justice administration fee as of July 1, 2021 under Gov. Code §6111.
- The abstract of judgment was ordered amended to reflect vacatur of any unpaid balance; judgment affirmed as amended.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred under Dueñas by imposing assessments without ability‑to‑pay hearing | Trial court did hold a hearing and expressly found defendant could pay the lesser assessments | No adequate ability‑to‑pay determination for the other fees; Dueñas requires such a hearing | No error: record shows hearing and express finding of ability to pay the lesser amounts |
| Whether imposition violated due process and the Excessive Fines Clause | No constitutional violation; defendant had earning potential and did not preserve an excessive‑fines objection | Fees violate due process per Dueñas and constitute excessive fines given indigence | Due process claim rejected; excessive‑fines claim forfeited and, on the merits, not shown (no proportionality showing; ability‑to‑pay finding sustained) |
| Whether the criminal justice administration fee is collectible after July 1, 2021 | Statute (Gov. Code §6111) renders unpaid balances of specified pre‑July 1, 2021 fees unenforceable | Requested vacatur of fee balances | Vacated any unpaid portion of the $129.75 fee as of July 1, 2021; amend abstract of judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (2019) (held certain assessments and execution of restitution fine require an ability‑to‑pay determination)
- People v. Kopp, 38 Cal.App.5th 47 (2019) (addressed requirement for ability‑to‑pay findings; review granted by California Supreme Court)
- People v. Staley, 10 Cal.App.4th 782 (1992) (ability to pay can be based on earning potential and does not require current employment)
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 37 Cal.4th 707 (2005) (sets proportionality framework for excessive‑fines analysis)
- People v. Baker, 20 Cal.App.5th 711 (2018) (excessive‑fines/Eighth Amendment claims forfeited if not raised in trial court)