Error and/or relief
The trial court improperly imposed fines and ancillary costs without considering the defendant’s ability to pay. The ancillary fees imposed on the defendant are vacated, and this matter is remanded to the trial court with instructions to consider whether the defendant has the ability to pay the court operations assessment and the court facilities assessment imposed in his sentence.
First Holding:
We review the imposition of fines and assessments for abuse of discretion.
Authority:
People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1043
Second Holding:
The respondent argues that the defendant forfeited the issue regarding his ability to pay because defense counsel did not object to the fines or assessments imposed. The defendant states that he personally objected that he was unable to pay, preserving the issue for appeal, or his counsel rendered ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to object.
In light of the ineffective assistance of counsel claim, we exercise our discretion to reach the merits of the defendant’s challenge.
Authority:
People v. Williams (1998) 17 Cal.4th 148, 161, fn. 6
Third Holding:
Kopp divided court-ordered payments into three categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution.
Addressing fines, Kopp held that fines (including restitution fines under section 1202.4) are punitive in nature, that fines should be analyzed under the excessive fines clauses in the United States and California Constitutions, and that courts need not hold a hearing on a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing all fines.
By contrast, Kopp continued, ancillary costs (including court facilities fees under Government Code section 70373 and court operations fees under section 1465.8) are not punitive in nature, and equal protection principles require a rational basis for treating ancillary fees for indigent criminal defendants differently than indigent civil litigants. Finding no such basis, Kopp concluded that, when requested, trial courts must consider a defendant’s ability to pay ancillary costs.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 18-24, 25, 28, 30
Fourth Holding:
Points perfunctorily asserted in briefing on appeal without argument in support are not properly raised.
Authority:
People v. Williams (1997) 16 Cal.4th 153, 206