Category Archives: Equal protection

Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case: 000346

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed a minimum $300 restitution fine and an assessment of $70 in ancillary costs. The trial court held a hearing and determined that the defendant had the ability to pay. We affirm the order on ancillary costs but remand to give the defendant the opportunity to further challenge the restitution fine under Kopp.

First Holding:

A person convicted of a crime can, and in some cases must, be ordered to pay a variety of punitive fines along with other nonpunitive ancillary costs. Some statutes require the imposition of fines and ancillary costs regardless of a defendant’s ability to pay. Other statutes require a finding of the ability to pay or allow for its consideration. Restitution fines under section 1202.4 are considered punitive fines, whereas assessments to fund court facilities and operations are considered ancillary costs. The distinction between punitive fines and other imposed payments is important because it impacts whether a given form of required payment is initially challenged under, and then reviewed under, the constitutional excessive fines clauses, or under the constitutional provision for equal protection.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 12, 14-15, 18 [we analyze fines and ancillary costs separately because different justifications support each, and different constitutional protections apply]

Second Holding:

If requested by a defendant, the court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1), or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 25-26, 30 [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 either assessment]

Third Holding:

In reaching its conclusion that the defendant did not meet his burden to show his inability to pay the ancillary costs, the court considered his potential to earn wages while in prison and his general ability to work, which was within its discretion to do. The trial court did not state that it was relying solely on the defendant’s ability to earn wages while in prison. The court found simply that he is capable of working. The trial court’s conclusion that he had the ability to pay $70 in court assessments was not arbitrary or irrational.

Authority:

People v. Fish (2024) 102 Cal.App.5th 730, 739 [collecting cases]

People v. Santos (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 923, 934 [factors to consider in determining ability to pay may include, among others, the defendant’s realistic ability to earn prison wages or obtain employment]

People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 490, disapproved in part as stated in Kopp, at p. 23, fn. 17. 490 [trial court may consider potential prison pay during the period of incarceration” in determining inability to pay]

People v. Cervantes (2020) 46 Cal.App.5th 213, 229 [ability to pay includes the ability both to obtain prison wages and to earn money after release from custody]

People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 377 [a trial court does not abuse its discretion unless its decision is so irrational or arbitrary that no reasonable person could agree with it]

Fourth Holding:

Punitive fines are subject to a different approach. There is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Sentencing judges may, and often do, consider the defendant’s ability to pay, but in such circumstances they are guided by sound judicial discretion rather than by constitutional mandate.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 23

San Antonio Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Fifth Holding:

A court has discretion to impose a nonexcessive fine as punishment, even on indigent defendants. Thus, the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. The touchstone of the constitutional inquiry for excessive fines 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. While ability to pay may be part of the proportionality analysis, it is not the only factor.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 23

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 334

Sixth Holding:

Under section 1202.4(b), the restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. The court shall impose the restitution fine unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. A defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4

Seventh Holding:

A court’s ruling on ability to pay is reviewed for abuse of discretion. The defendant bears the burden of demonstrating his or her inability to pay the imposed amounts.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 21, 24

People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 868

People v. Lowery (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1046, 1057, 1053

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000338

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When it initially granted the defendant probation, the court waived various fines and assessments based on indigence. On revocation of probation, the court imposed a restitution fine and other assessments. Remanded for the court to consider the defendant’s challenges to the fees and assessments in light of a recent Supreme Court decision.

First Holding:

Under the Supreme Court’s holding in Kopp a defendant may challenge the imposition of any fine as constitutionally excessive. Because Kopp was decided after entry of the juidgment on appeal here, the defendant should have the opportunity to make such a challenge. Though the court could determine that the issue was forfeited for lack of objection, forfeiture may be excused where to require defense counsel to raise an objection would place an unreasonable burden on defendants to anticipate unforeseen changes in the law.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

People v. Perez (2020) 9 Cal.5th 1, 8

People v. Brown (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 113, 127 [Courts generally decline to apply the forfeiture rule to a right derived from recent, unanticipated changes to the law.]

Second Holding:

A restitution fine under section 1202.4(b)(1) is required in every case where a person is convicted of a crime unless the court finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. ) Section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), states that the minimum restitution fine is $300 for each felony conviction and that the maximum fine is $10,000. Section 1202.4, subdivision (c), allows the court not to impose the restitution fine for compelling and extraordinary reasons, but states the defendant’s inability to pay is not a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose the minimum fine. Thus, the defendant’s inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine. Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13, 30

People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 963, 967

People v. Preston (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 415, 423

People v. Miracle (2018) 6 Cal.5th 318, 356

People v. Montelongo (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 1016, 1033 [Under section 1202.4(c), the trial court may not consider a defendant’s ability to pay when imposing the minimum restitution fine of $300, but the court may consider the defendant’s ability to pay if the court imposes a restitution fine above the minimum.]

Third Holding:

Although fines may properly be imposed as punishment for crime, the “excessive fines analysis” under the United States and California Constitutions, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. But there is no due process requirement to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23 and fn. 17

Fourth Holding:

Section 1465.8(a)(1) requires, to assist in funding court operations, an assessment of $40 to be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense. Government Code section 70373(a)(1) requires, to ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, that $30 assessment be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense. Both costs are mandatory. But equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1).

Authority:

PEN 1465.8

GOV 70373(a)(1)

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 9, 15

People v. Robinson (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 401, 405

Abstracts and Minutes, Due process, Equal protection, Jury trial, Racial Justice Act, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case: 000262

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred by permitting the prosecution’s peremptory challenge to a juror, within the meaning of Code of Civil Procedure section 231.7 (CCP 231.7), which requires reversal. The court also erred in denying the defendant’s motion for discovery under the Racial Justice Act (RJA) to support his claim that racial bias infected his case. We conclude the trial court misapplied the applicable legal standards. We conclude that the trial court erroneously applied the law in denying the defendant’s motion for discovery. The defendant also contends that the abstract of judgment should be corrected because it does not reflect the trial court’s ruling regarding his fees and fines. Because we reverse the conviction, we need not reach this issue.

First Holding:

Both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit any advocate’s use of peremptory challenges to exclude prospective jurors based on race. Doing so violates both the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution and the right to trial by a jury drawn from a representative cross-section of the community under article I, section 16 of the California Constitution. Excluding by peremptory challenge even a single juror on the basis of race or ethnicity is an error of constitutional magnitude.

Authority:

People v. Holmes, McClain and Newborn (2022) 12 Cal.5th 719, 759–760

People v. Gutierrez (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1150, 1157

Second Holding:

After studies showed that the existing analysis under Batson v. Kentucky (1986) 476 U.S. 79 and People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258 was inadequate to prevent racial discrimination, the Legislature enacted CCP 231.7, effective in criminal trials beginning January 1, 2022, to establish a new process for identifying unlawful bias in the use of peremptory challenges during jury selection.

Authority:

People v. Jimenez (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 534, 539–540

Third Holding:

In contrast to the three-step Batson/Wheeler procedure, under CCP 231.7, there is no requirement that the objecting party first make a showing of purposeful discrimination. Rather, upon objection, the party exercising the peremptory challenge shall state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised. The trial court shall evaluate the reasons given to justify the peremptory challenge in light of the totality of the circumstances. In doing so, the court shall consider only the reasons actually given and shall not speculate on, or assume the existence of, other possible justifications for the use of the peremptory challenge.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Jaime (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 941, 943

People v. Hinojos (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 524, 540–541

Fourth Holding:

Unlike in the Batson/Wheeler analysis, the ultimate question for the trial court is not whether the party exercising the peremptory challenge engaged in purposeful discrimination. The statute expressly recognizes that discrimination in violation of this section need not be purposeful, but may involve unconscious bias, which includes implicit and institutional biases. The trial court shall sustain the objection to the use of the peremptory challenge if the court determines there is a substantial likelihood that an objectively reasonable person [aware that unconscious bias, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have resulted in the unfair exclusion of potential jurors in the State of California], would view race as a factor in the use of the peremptory challenge. The statute defines “substantial likelihood” as more than a mere possibility but less than a standard of more likely than not.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

People v. Hinojos (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 524, 541

Fifth Holding:

CCP 231.7, subdivisions (e) and (g) provide two separate lists of presumptively invalid reasons for exercising a peremptory challenge. Each of these subdivisions sets out a distinct process by which a court determines whether a presumptively invalid reason can be absolved of that presumption.

Authority:

CCP 231.7(e),(g)

People v. Ortiz (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 768, 793

Sixth Holding:

The denial of an objection shall be reviewed de novo, with the trial court’s express factual findings reviewed for substantial evidence. Erroneous denial of a challenge is deemed prejudicial and requires reversal of the judgment and remand for a new trial.

Authority:

CCP 231.7

Seventh Holding:

We review the factual underpinnings of a discovery order for substantial evidence, but where such a determination rests on incorrect legal premises, our review is de novo.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court of Solano County (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 156

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th pp. Supp. 36, 55

Eighth Holding:

Penal Code section 745 authorizes a defendant to file a discovery motion at trial as soon as practicable upon the defendant learning of an alleged violation, and requires the trial court to hold an evidentiary hearing if the defendant makes a prima facie showing of the violation.

Authority:

PEN 745

Ninth Holding:

To establish good cause for discovery under the RJA, a defendant is required to advance a plausible factual foundation, based on specific facts, that a violation of the RJA could or might have occurred in his case. This is a notably less demanding standard than the prima facie requirement set forth in the statute for granting an evidentiary hearing, and a standard that should not be difficult to meet.

Authority:

Young v. Superior Court of Solano County (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 138, 159

McDaniel v. Superior Court (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 228, 244 [trial court should consider the relevance of the proffered facts to the claims of racial bias to determine whether a minimally plausible basis exists to grant discovery—a low threshold]

Gonzales v. Superior Court (2024) 108 Cal.App.5th pp. Supp. 36, 44 [reversing denial of discovery motion where defendant had minimally proffered a plausible factual foundation for a potential violation of the RJA]

Tenth Holding:

[Gary note: The abstract of judgment apparently did not reflect the court’s order regarding fines and fees. The opinion gave no further information, because the issue would be addressed on remand for other reasons. But the law is clear that the court could have ordered correction of the abstract of judgment and minute orders. I have set forth some cases it could have relied on had it addressed the issue.]

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Equal protection, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000194

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendant appeals the trial court’s written order vacating its prior order appointing counsel and scheduling a Franklin hearing to preserve mitigating evidence for use in a future youthful offender parole hearing. Defendant asks this court to remand the matter so he may present additional argument to the trial court. The People do not oppose giving defendant an opportunity to establish his eligibility for a Franklin hearing. We accept the People’s concession and will reverse and remand the matter.

First Holding:

As of January 1, 2020, defendants who committed crimes when they were 25 years old or younger are generally eligible for a youth offender parole hearing after specified periods, depending on their sentence. However, the statute excludes those defendants who, like defendant here, were sentenced to LWOP for crimes they committed when they were 18 to 25 years old.

[GARY NOTE: A defendant who is eligible for future consideration of parole as a youthful offender may make a record in the superior court to preserve facts that may be persuasive in a future hearing on whether to grant parole.]

Authority:

PEN 3051

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

Although Hardin rejected an equal protection challenge to section 3051 by an offender sentenced to LWOP for special circumstance murder, it did not foreclose other as-applied challenges to the statute based on particular special circumstances or the factual circumstances of individual cases.

Authority:

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 484-495 [the defendant successfully raised an as-applied challenge to section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders convicted of special circumstance murder under section 190.2(d)]

Third Holding:

There are cases with possibly similar crimes by possibly equally culpable offenders who would now be eligible for parole while the defendant is not. Although these authorities do not conclusively establish any violation of defendant’s right to equal protection, they do allow for the possibility that he might be able to develop such an argument under Harden.

Authority:

People v. Carter (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 831

People v. Mulqueen (1970) 9 Cal.App.3d 532

People v. Fortman (1967) 257 Cal.App.2d 45

Fourth Holding:

Some states have constitutions that prohibit imposing an LWOP sentence on youthful offenders. While these authorities do not conclusively establish that section 3051’s exclusion of young adult offenders constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the California Constitution, they allow for the possibility that defendant might be able to develop such an argument.

Authority:

Commonwealth v. Mattis (2024) 493 Mass. 216, 234-235

Equal protection, Juveniles, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case: 000187

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant contends on this appeal that the trial court erroneously found he was not entitled to a Franklin hearing in his petition for writ of habeas corpus and erred in denying his Franklin motion as successive. In 2018, the defendant filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus requesting a Franklin hearing.

(The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing.)

That court (in 2018) denied that petition on the basis that he was not eligible for a youth offender parole hearing because he would already be released before reaching the 15 years’ threshold for youth offender parole. In 2024, the defendant filed a motion for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The trial court denied that motion on the grounds that it was a successive motion. The People agree with defendant that the court erred when it denied his motion as successive. We conclude the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s motion for a Franklin hearing as successive. We reverse the court’s order and remand for the court to consider defendant’s motion under Penal Code section 1203.01.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2014, SB 260 (2013–2014 Reg. Sess.) enacted sections 3051, 3046(c), and 4801(c) to provide a parole eligibility mechanism for youthful offenders. Defendants who were 25 years old or younger at the time they committed the offense and were convicted of a determinate term are entitled to a youth offender parole hearing during their 15th year of incarceration. The Franklin court had held that a defendant seeking to preserve evidence following a final judgment should be given an opportunity to make a record of information relevant to his youth offender parole hearing.. Franklin authorized trial courts to receive any documents, evaluations or testimony that may be relevant at an eventual youth offender parole hearing. For defendants whose judgments were final, the proper procedure to obtain a Franklin hearing is to file a motion in superior court under the original caption and case number, citing the authority of section 1203.01 and the Cook decision.

Authority:

PEN 1203.01

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261,283-284

People v. Perez (2016) 3 Cal.App.5th 612, 618

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Second Holding:

There is no express bar to successive motions or requests for a Franklin hearing under section 1203.01. The defendant’s section 1203.01 motion should not have been denied as successive.

Authority:

PEN 1203.1

People v. Franklin (2016) 63 Cal.4th 261

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439

Third Holding:

The trial court’s order denying a defendant’s Franklin motion is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. In deciding whether the court abused its discretion we ask whether the trial court’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, whether its rulings of law are correct, and whether its application of the law to the facts was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Critical to the resolution of this case, we note that when a trial court’s decision rests on an error of law, that decision is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 459

People v. Benzler (2021) 72 Cal.App.5th 743, 749

People v. Superior Court (Humberto S.) (2008) 43 Cal.4th 737, 746

Fourth Holding:

Although defendant originally sought a Franklin hearing by filing a petition for writ of habeas corpus, as Cook explained, habeas corpus was not the proper procedure in the first instance. Accordingly, the court’s order denying the habeas petition did not bar the court from ruling on defendant’s subsequent Franklin motion, which was properly raised under section 1203.01 and Cook. As such, the trial court erred when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion on the sole basis he had already sought a Franklin hearing by filing a habeas petition. Therefore, the court abused its discretion when it denied defendant’s Franklin motion as successive.

Authority:

ADIn re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 457-458