44 Cal.App.5th 365
Cal. Ct. App.2020Background
- Edwin Villatoro pled no contest to a felony assault and was placed on three years' formal probation.
- Under Penal Code § 29810 (as amended by Prop. 63), courts must provide a Prohibited Persons Relinquishment Form to felony defendants and may assess an infraction fine up to $100 for failure to timely file it.
- Villatoro invoked his Fifth Amendment right and declined to complete the form; the trial court told him a $100 fine would be imposed if he did not sign and later set a nonappearance hearing.
- At a subsequent hearing when Villatoro was not present, the court treated the matter as an infraction hearing, found Villatoro failed to file the form, and imposed a $100 fine.
- Villatoro appealed, arguing the fine was unauthorized because the district attorney never charged an infraction; the Attorney General argued the DA’s silence amounted to implied concurrence.
- The Court of Appeal reversed the $100 fine but affirmed the remainder of the judgment, holding the court lacked authority to initiate and impose an infraction fine absent proper prosecution and the defendant’s presence at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court could impose a § 29810 infraction fine without the prosecutor charging the infraction | The DA did not object to the court’s proceeding, so the court had implicit concurrence to initiate infraction proceedings | The infraction was never charged or authorized by the DA, so the court lacked authority to convict and fine | The court may not initiate infraction proceedings or impose the § 29810 fine absent prosecution authorization; reversal of the fine |
| Whether the $100 fine could be imposed at a nonappearance hearing | Implied concurrence means procedure was acceptable | Defendant must be present when a fine (punishment) is imposed | A fine is part of the sentence and must be pronounced in the defendant’s presence; imposition at a nonappearance hearing was improper |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Municipal Court for Ventura Judicial Dist., 27 Cal.App.3d 193 (1972) (prosecutions must be instituted and authorized by the district attorney)
- People v. Mesa, 14 Cal.3d 466 (1975) (oral pronouncement of sentence constitutes the judgment)
- People v. Zackery, 147 Cal.App.4th 380 (2007) (judgment, including fines, must be imposed in the defendant's presence)
- People v. Hong, 64 Cal.App.4th 1071 (1998) (a fine is punishment and part of the judgment)