Error and/or relief
The trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay ancillary costs and to reimburse the police department for the SART [Sexual Assault Response Team] examination costs without considering his ability to pay and while the amount of victim reimbursement had yet to be determined. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
First Holding:
Because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, our review is limited to issues occurring after entry of the plea that do not affect its validity.
Authority:
PEN 1237.5
Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3)
People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096
Second Holding:
While this appeal was pending, our Supreme Court decided Kopp, which held that (1) a defendant may challenge the imposition of a punitive fine (e.g., restitution fines under Penal Code section 1202.4) under the excessive fines provisions of the United States and California Constitutions; and (2) equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing ancillary costs (e.g., court facilities fees under Government Code section 70373 and court operations fees under section 1465.8).
Because defendant did not have the benefit of Kopp’s specific reasoning at the time of his sentencing, we conclude he must be afforded the opportunity to assert an excessive fine objection and develop a factual record on the considerations relevant to that claim.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1
Third Holding:
The touchstone of the excessive fines inquiry is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.
Four considerations inform that inquiry: (1) the defendant’s culpability; (2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and (4) the defendant’s ability to pay.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23
People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728
Fourth Holding:
As for the $30 court operations fee and the $40 court facilities fee, Kopp held that, in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing ancillary costs in criminal cases.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 31
Fifth Holding:
Here, the trial court erroneously denied defense counsel’s request for an ability to pay hearing. Although some courts have found such error harmless where the record otherwise reflects the defendant’s earning capacity, we decline to do so here, as the People do not contend the record is sufficient to make such a determination in this case.
Furthermore, an ability to pay hearing is also required under section 1203.1h [regarding the cost of medical examinations incurred by law enforcement for the collection and preservation of evidence in sexual assault cases].
Authority:
PEN 1203.1h(b)
People v. Aviles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1075–1077
People v. Johnson (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 134, 139–140