Error and/or relief
We strike the protective order, because none of the offenses involved domestic violence. We also remand to give the defendant the opportunity to present evidence on his ability to pay the restitution fine and assessments.
First Holding:
Although initially charged with crimes involving domestic violence, his guilty plea was to a crime that did not involved domestic violence as defined in section 13700 or in Family Code section 6211. His crime is not specifically listed in section 136.2(i)(1), and it does not require registration as a sex offender. Hence, the trial court was without authority at sentencing to issue the criminal protective order for the victim’s benefit under section 136.2(i)(1). As the court did not have statutory authority to issue the criminal protective order, it must be stricken.
Authority:
People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901
Second Holding:
The court imposed a $2,400 restitution fine, as well as a $2,400 parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. The court also imposed a $40 court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)).
After sentencing, while this matter was still on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kopp. As to punitive fines, including restitution fines, the court found that due process does not require a trial court to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine.
However, the court also noted that both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit excessive fines, and held that the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines.
As to court operations assessments and court facilities assessments, which are ancillary costs, the court held that equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment.
Because neither defendant nor the trial court had the benefit of Kopp’s reasoning and holding at the time of the sentencing hearing, we will direct the court to give defendant an opportunity to challenge the restitution fine and the assessments under Kopp.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13, 23, 30