56 Cal.App.5th 851
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Defendant Reffiglia Pack‑Ramirez pled no contest to felony identifying information theft with a prior and was sentenced to the upper term of 3 years in county jail.
- The trial court orally imposed a $600 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), $619.86 victim restitution (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code § 70373), and $109.50 probation‑report fee (§ 1203.1b); the clerk’s minutes/abstract mistakenly stated a $300 restitution fine.
- On appeal Pack‑Ramirez sought conditional reversal and remand for a hearing under newly effective Penal Code § 1001.83 (primary‑caregiver pretrial diversion), arguing the statute should apply retroactively.
- She also argued the court violated due process by imposing fines/assessments without determining her ability to pay (relying on People v. Dueñas).
- The record showed El Dorado County had not established a § 1001.83 program; the People conceded an ability‑to‑pay hearing might be warranted but the court of appeal disagreed with applying Dueñas.
- The court affirmed the judgment, ordered correction of the abstract/minute order to reflect the orally pronounced $600 restitution fine, and declined to remand for a diversion‑eligibility hearing as an idle act.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (People) | Defendant's Argument (Pack‑Ramirez) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendant could appeal retroactive application of § 1001.83 without a certificate of probable cause | Appeal may be improper without certificate | No certificate required for post‑plea, non‑collateral claims about new ameliorative law | Court: certificate not required; appeal may proceed on post‑plea noncollateral grounds (citing Stamps/Mendez) |
| Whether § 1001.83 applies retroactively such that defendant is entitled to a conditional remand for an eligibility hearing | People: statute’s pretrial procedural framework shows it was not meant to benefit post‑plea defendants; Legislature signaled prospective application | § 1001.83 is ameliorative, lacks a savings clause, so Estrada presumption favors retroactivity; defendant seeks conditional remand | Court: § 1001.83 is of the same character as other ameliorative diversion statutes and Estrada/Frahs principles apply, but remand would be an idle act because El Dorado County has not established a § 1001.83 program and § 1001.83(a) requires a local written agreement |
| Whether the trial court violated due process (and/or Eighth Amendment) by imposing fines/assessments without an ability‑to‑pay hearing | People: record unclear but conceded hearing might be warranted; ability‑to‑pay inquiry not required for all fees | Pack‑Ramirez: Dueñas requires an ability‑to‑pay hearing before imposing assessments and to stay execution of restitution fines until such hearing | Court: declined to adopt Dueñas rule broadly; affirmed fines/fees as not invalid on record and rejected remand under Dueñas; ordered correction of abstract to reflect $600 restitution fine; Eighth Amendment excessive‑fine claim did not mandate remand on this record |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Mendez, 19 Cal.4th 1084 (Cal. 1999) (certificate‑of‑probable‑cause exception for appeals raising post‑plea noncollateral issues)
- People v. Stamps, 9 Cal.5th 685 (Cal. 2020) (new ameliorative sentencing law applied retroactively without certificate requirement)
- In re Estrada, 63 Cal.2d 740 (Cal. 1965) (presumption that ameliorative statutes apply to nonfinal judgments absent clear legislative intent otherwise)
- People v. DeHoyos, 4 Cal.5th 594 (Cal. 2018) (discusses Estrada retroactivity analysis)
- People v. Frahs, 9 Cal.5th 618 (Cal. 2020) (applied Estrada to mental‑health diversion statute § 1001.36)
- People v. Jefferson, 38 Cal.App.5th 399 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (no conditional remand where hearing would be idle)
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held trial court must conduct ability‑to‑pay hearing before imposing certain assessments)
- People v. Kopp, 38 Cal.App.5th 47 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (followed Dueñas on ability‑to‑pay; review granted by Supreme Court)
- People v. Zackery, 147 Cal.App.4th 380 (Cal. Ct. App. 2007) (oral pronouncement controls over minutes/abstract)
- United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (U.S. 1998) (excessive‑fines proportionality analysis)
- People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 37 Cal.4th 707 (Cal. 2005) (factors for Eighth Amendment proportionality review)