People v. Whitfield CA3, C091571

Whitfield pleaded no contest to failure to appear and admitted violating a restraining order; sentenced February 20, 2020.
The court imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4(b)), $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code § 70373).
Defense counsel did not object at sentencing and did not request an ability-to-pay hearing under People v. Dueñas (2019).
Postjudgment, Whitfield moved under Penal Code § 1237.2 to stay or strike the fines/fees relying on Dueñas; the trial court denied the motion.
On appeal Whitfield argued the fines/fees were imposed without the Dueñas-required ability-to-pay hearing and that trial counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance of counsel.
The Court of Appeal affirmed, holding (1) the Dueñas claim was forfeited for failure to object at sentencing, and (2) counsel was not constitutionally ineffective because Whitfield suffered no prejudice.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (People)	Defendant's Argument (Whitfield)	Held
Whether fines/assessments imposed without an ability-to-pay hearing violated Dueñas	Forfeited: Whitfield failed to object at sentencing; sentencing occurred after Dueñas so issue must be raised below	Dueñas requires an ability-to-pay hearing before court assessments and stay of restitution execution until hearing	Forfeited. Appeal rejected; trial court’s denial of §1237.2 motion disposes of claim.
Whether counsel’s failure to object was ineffective assistance	Not ineffective: defendant must show prejudice; court considered and denied §1237.2 motion, so no prejudice from failure to object	Counsel should have objected under Dueñas; failure prejudiced Whitfield	No ineffective assistance. Defendant cannot show a reasonable probability of a better outcome.
Eighth Amendment excessive-fine claim (raised in reply)	Forfeited / not compelled by record	Restitution fine is unconstitutionally excessive	Not independently sustained; court affirmed on forfeiture/ineffectiveness grounds (no relief).

People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (trial court must conduct an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing court facilities and operations assessments; stay execution of restitution until ability-to-pay hearing)
People v. Nelson, 51 Cal.4th 198 (failure to object at sentencing forfeits ability-to-pay challenge)
People v. Gamache, 48 Cal.4th 347 (forfeiture of restitution fine challenge when not raised below)
People v. Trujillo, 60 Cal.4th 850 (constitutional exception to forfeiture did not apply to ability-to-pay hearing waiver claim)
In re Sheena K., 40 Cal.4th 875 (constitutional rights may be forfeited by failure to timely assert them)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (to preserve sentencing issues for appeal, raise them in the trial court)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective assistance two-prong test: deficient performance and prejudice)
People v. Ledesma, 43 Cal.3d 171 (California guidance on ineffective assistance analysis)