Error and/or relief
We remand solely as to the fines and ancillary costs ordered in this case on appeal.
First Holding:
Kopp allows challenges based on the excessive fines and equal protection clauses of the federal or state Constitutions.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1
Second Holding:
Kopp addresses the proper means by which a criminal defendant may challenge the various court ordered payments imposed at criminal sentencings. Those payments fall into three broad categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution. As to fines, such as restitution and parole revocation payments under Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, there is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Instead, excessive fines analysis, which includes consideration of ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines under either the federal or state Constitutions.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 17, 23
Third Holding:
As to ancillary costs, under Penal Code section 1465.8 and Government Code section 70373, Kopp explains an equal protection analysis is appropriate and holds that equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment.
(Gary note: This stems from the recognition that in civil cases, the same fees are due, but the superior court may waive them for civil litigants. Kopp concludes that criminal defendants must be given the same consideration, as there is no legitimate reason to discriminate between civil cases and criminal cases for administrative assessments that go toward support of the court system and are not punitive in nature.)
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30