Error and/or relief
The court erred in imposing two $30 criminal conviction assessment fees and two $40 court operations assessment fees without first determining whether the defendant had the ability to pay those fees.
First Holding:
The imposition of ancillary payments raises equal protection issues. Upon request, a court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment (Pen. Code, sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) or a court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)).
In making this determination, a court must allow the parties to present any relevant evidence or argument on the matter. For these reasons, we vacate the $80 court operations assessment fees and $60 criminal conviction assessment fees and remand the matter to afford the trial court an opportunity to determine in the first instance whether the defendant has the ability to pay those costs.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1
Second Holding:
To avoid passing upon whether the defendant’s trial attorney failed to provide constitutionally adequate assistance, we exercise our discretion to excuse the defendant’s forfeiture of his challenge to the imposition of the ancillary costs.
Authority:
People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [noting that a reviewing court may reach the merits of a forfeited claim t forestall a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel]