People v. Petri
45 Cal.App.5th 82
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Jeffrey Petri pleaded no contest to grand theft (case B1687703) and embezzlement (case C1646362) and admitted one prior prison term; sentences were an aggregate of four years concurrent.
- At sentencing the court granted 577 days of custody credit (289 actual, 288 conduct) and ordered in each case a $300 restitution fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 court facilities assessment; victim restitution amounts were also ordered.
- Petri sought additional presentence credit for 19 days jailed in Ohio; the trial court denied that request.
- Post‑sentence the trial court struck the duplicate prior‑term enhancement in C1646362, leaving one section 667.5(b) one‑year enhancement in B1687703.
- On appeal Petri argued (1) the fines/assessments violated due process under People v. Dueñas because the court did not make a present ability‑to‑pay finding, (2) he was entitled to additional Ohio custody credits, and (3) the prior‑term enhancement must be stricken under recently enacted legislation (SB 136). The court affirmed except it struck the remaining 667.5(b) enhancement and ordered corrections to the abstract of judgment.
Issues
| Issue | People’s Argument | Petri’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposition of $300 restitution fine, $40 court operations assessment, and $30 court facilities assessment without an express ability‑to‑pay finding violated due process under Dueñas | Forfeiture argued but AG also contended Dueñas was wrongly decided as to restitution fines; did not concede error for restitution fine | Dueñas requires an ability‑to‑pay hearing before imposing those amounts; vacate or stay assessments/fine until ability‑to‑pay shown | Court assumed Dueñas not controlling here; held no due process violation — imposition permissible without present‑ability finding in this context; declined to remand for ability‑to‑pay hearing |
| Whether Petri forfeited his Dueñas claim by not objecting at sentencing | Objecting was not required because prevailing law (Long) made challenge unforeseeable; appellate courts have split | Petri argued objection would have been futile pre‑Dueñas, so claim not forfeited | Court assumed no forfeiture for purposes of decision but rejected Dueñas‑based relief on merits |
| Whether Petri is entitled to additional presentence custody credit for Ohio detention | Mootness: Petri released and no supervision; excess credits cannot reduce restitution/assessments | Petri sought 19 additional actual days (plus conduct credit) for Ohio custody | Held moot — Petri already released with no postrelease supervision and excess credits cannot apply to restitution/assessments |
| Whether the one‑year prior prison term enhancement (former § 667.5(b)) must be stricken under 2019 amendment (SB 136) | AG conceded amendment applies retroactively to nonfinal judgments and enhancement must be stricken | Petri argued enhancement no longer applies because prior term was not for a sexually violent offense | Held enhancement stricken in B1687703; judgment otherwise affirmed; directed amended abstract of judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (held ability‑to‑pay hearing required before imposing certain assessments and to stay restitution fine until ability shown)
- People v. Long, 164 Cal.App.3d 820 (Cal. Ct. App. 1985) (upheld imposition of minimum restitution fine without a contemporaneous ability‑to‑pay hearing)
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (access‑to‑courts precedents relied on in Dueñas)
- In re Antazo, 3 Cal.3d 100 (Cal. 1970) (equal protection limits on incarcerating indigents for inability to pay fines)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (probation revocation for nonpayment requires inquiry into ability to pay and bona fide efforts)
- People v. Hicks, 40 Cal.App.5th 320 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (critiqued Dueñas; held the two strands of precedent cited by Dueñas do not compel its broad rule)
- People v. Lopez, 42 Cal.App.5th 337 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (interpreting SB 136 retroactivity to judgments not yet final)
- People v. Wright, 31 Cal.App.5th 749 (Cal. Ct. App. 2019) (ordering strike of a former § 667.5(b) enhancement under amended law)