People v. Santos
251 Cal. Rptr. 3d 483
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Santos was arrested for stealing a vehicle and pleaded no contest to vehicle theft (with prior), possession of methamphetamine, possession of burglary tools, and buying/receiving a stolen vehicle; he admitted one prison prior.
- Sentenced to a mitigated two-year prison term (with concurrent and stayed terms on other counts); received 452 days credit.
- The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (plus $300 suspended parole-revocation fine), a $4 emergency medical air transport fine, an $80 court operations assessment (Pen. Code §1465.8), a $60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code §70373), and a $129.75 criminal justice administration fee.
- Santos was represented by the public defender, the probation report indicated homelessness, mental illness, and receipt of about $800/month in SSDI; counsel argued indigence at sentencing but did not object to the specific assessments.
- Counsel filed a Wende opening brief raising no issues; the appellate court, after Dueñas, requested supplemental briefing and ordered a limited remand to determine Santos’s ability to pay the court operations and criminal conviction assessments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether imposition of court operations (Pen. Code §1465.8) and criminal conviction (Gov. Code §70373) assessments without an ability-to-pay finding violates due process | Santos: Dueñas requires a present ability-to-pay determination before imposing such assessments on an indigent defendant | Attorney General (as to these assessments): conceded remand appropriate; argued Dueñas is correct for assessments though contested for restitution fine | Court: Applying Dueñas, remand for limited hearing; if defendant demonstrates inability to pay, strike the $80 and $60 assessments; otherwise assessments may remain |
| Whether Santos forfeited the ability-to-pay challenge by not objecting at sentencing | Santos: Forfeiture excused because Dueñas announced an unforeseeable change in constitutional law; also plea form altered and counsel advocated indigence | AG: conceded remand and did not press forfeiture here | Court: No forfeiture — Dueñas represented an unforeseeable legal change and record showed indigence indicators, so appellate review permitted |
| Proper remedy and burden on remand | Santos: limited remand for an ability-to-pay hearing; defendant should be allowed to present evidence of indigence | AG and court: remand; but defendant bears burden to prove inability to pay; court may consider present circumstances and reasonable factors (including potential prison wages) | Court: Limited remand ordered; defendant must request hearing and carry burden to prove inability to pay; court may consider housing, benefits, mental illness, realistic earnings including prison wages |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Court of Appeal) (held court operations and criminal conviction assessments may not be imposed on an indigent defendant without an ability-to-pay determination; stayed execution of restitution fine until ability to pay shown)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (Cal. 1979) (procedure for appellate independent review when counsel files brief raising no issues)
- People v. Black, 41 Cal.4th 799 (Cal. 2007) (forfeiture exception when law changes unforeseeably after trial)
- Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (U.S. 1956) (equal protection/due process bars state-imposed financial barriers that deny effective appellate review to indigents)
- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (U.S. 1983) (probation cannot be revoked for failure to pay absent inquiry into ability to pay and willful nature of nonpayment)
- People v. Castellano, 33 Cal.App.5th 485 (Cal. Ct. App.) (followed Dueñas; remand for ability-to-pay hearing where record lacked ability-to-pay evidence)
- People v. Kopp, 38 Cal.App.5th 47 (Cal. Ct. App.) (discussed burden and factors for ability-to-pay hearings; courts may consider potential prison wages)
- People v. Alford, 42 Cal.4th 749 (Cal. 2007) (prior precedent treating assessments as nonpunitive administrative funding measures)