Tag Archives: Equal protection

Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 001015

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to stay the court facilities assessment and a court operations assessment based on defendant’s inability to pay. We vacate those orders.

Holding:

If a defendant requests such consideration, a trial 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).

Here, however, the trial court at resentencing purported to impose but stay the assessments based on inability to pay, rather than waive them.

Because there appears to be no basis to justify denying criminal defendants a waiver of certain ancillary costs when civil litigants may receive such a waiver, we will modify the judgment to strike the imposed but stayed court facilities assessment and court operations assessment.

Authority:

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

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Sentencing

Case 000895

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000883

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We remand for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court to conduct a hearing on whether to impose the ancillary costs in light of Kopp. The minute order and abstracts of judgment do not reflect the order of the court and must be corrected following that hearing.

First Holding:

At the sentencing hearing, the court did not mention, much less impose, fees under either section 1465.8 or Government Code section 70373. As for restitution fines, defense counsel requested the court consider staying any fines, and the court stated that it was striking the restitution fine and the parole revocation restitution fine, indicating that if that was found to be error on appeal, the court’s intent would be to impose the minimum $300 for both fines.

The minute order, however, reflects that the court ordered the fines in thh amount of $10,000. It then stated that the amounts were suspended. The minute order also included a court operations fee of $80 and a criminal conviction fee of $60. The abstract of judgment did not reflect the restitution fines, but did reflect the other two fees.

The judgment is controlled by the court’s oral pronouncements.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [An abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment and may not add to or modify the judgment it purports to digest or summarize.]

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388 [The clerk cannot supplement the judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the abstract of judgment.]

Second Holding:

Section 1465.8(a)(1) provides, in part: “To assist in funding court operations, an assessment of forty dollars ($40) shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense.” Government Code section 70373(a)(1) provides, in part: “To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, an assessment shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense. The assessment shall be imposed in the amount of thirty dollars ($30) for each misdemeanor or felony.”

The trial court was required to impose these ancillary costs unless it granted defendant fee waivers. The court took neither action at the sentencing hearing. This was error.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 25-26, 29-30

Third Holding:

Although the omission of mandatory assessments may be corrected for the first time on appeal, if we were to do that, the fees would be imposed without defendant having had the opportunity to request they be waived.

Instead, we will remand the matter for the trial court to correct the minutes from the sentencing hearing and to determine whether to impose the court operations fee and the criminal conviction fee consistent with Kopp.

Authority:

People v. Castellanos (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 1524, 1530

Fourth Holding:

The People did not object when the trial court struck the restitution fine and the parole revocation restitution fine.

When a party fails to object, at the time of sentencing, to a trial court’s decision regarding the imposition of restitution fines, the waiver doctrine precludes appellate relief.

The court struck the restitution fine at the sentencing hearing. Thus, to the extent the court’s minutes reflect otherwise, the minutes should be modified to strike the restitution fines.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 302–303

People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1027

Amelioration, Plea bargains, Sentencing

Case 000792

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in denying the defendant’s petition for resentencing under section 1170(d), because (a) it incorrectly concluded that section 1171 barred resentencing where the original sentence was agreed on by the parties, and (b) it incorrectly believed that the parties had originally agreed to the sentence imposed. Reversed and remanded.

Because the trial court did not consider whether, despite the availability of youthful offender parole, the defendant’s determinate sentence is a de facto LWOP sentence, we leave that issue for the trial court to consider in the first instance.

First Holding:

Penal Code section 1171 [effective 1/1/2025] does not bar modification of plea agreements in resentencing. To the contrary, the section expressly authorizes modification after a plea. It states that, absent a more specific statutory rule, in a postconviction proceeding to modify a sentence pursuant to an ameliorative statute the court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the defendant’s sentence, including if it was imposed after a guilty plea.

The statute then provides that a plea bargain may not be rescinded based upon such modification: Any change to a sentence shall not be basis for a prosecutor or court to rescind a plea agreement. Thus, section 1171 expressly authorizes trial courts to modify sentences imposed after a plea bargain and prohibits rescission of bargains based on such modification. The trial court erred in ruling that section 1171 barred resentencing because of the defendant’s plea agreement

Authority:

PEN 1171(a), (c)(2) and (c)(3)

Second Holding:

Section 1170(d), under certain circumstances, provides for the recall and resentencing of juvenile offenders [who were tried as adults] with LWOP sentences.

(Gary note: without citation to published authority directly discussing this point, the unpublished opinion concludes that the use of the term “life without the possibility of parole” in section 1170(d) does not mention any specific statutes imposing LWOP sentences, such as section 190.5.

(This court infers from that lack of specificity that the Legislature must have intended that section 1170(d) apply whenever a candidate has received a sentence that, effectively, precludes parole in his or her lifetime. In other words, this unpublished opinion’s reasoning on this point is that section 1170(d), by its very terms, contemplates both express LWOP sentences and de facto LWOP sentences (sentences whose terms cannot be completed within a reasonable lifetime).

(The court states, “Thus, the Legislature appears to have intended section 1170(d) to be interpreted in a practical rather than technical manner to apply not only to formal LWOP sentences but also to de facto LWOP sentences that effectively render a juvenile offender ineligible for parole before they are expected to die.”

(Keep in mind that my description of this part of the holding is placed in a bracketed “Gary note,” and I may be oversimplifying and even misstating the court’s reasoning on this point. I simply thought it was an interesting approach that may prove useful.

(Also, the county’s District Attorney “invited” the Supreme Court to grant review on its own motion.  I suspect it is because the Attorney General actually represented the People in this appeal, and the DA would have had no standing to file a petition for review.  The Supreme Court has granted itself to a date in October 2026 to decide whether to grant review on its own motion.)

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)(5)

Third Holding:

A practical interpretation of section 1170(d) is also supported by constitutional considerations. At least four Court of Appeal decisions have held that restricting resentencing under Section 1170(d) to juvenile offenders with formal LWOP sentences is irrational and violates equal protection, though others have disagreed.

Authority:

People v. Cabrera (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 650, 653

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 450-454

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1054-1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 631-634

Contra: People v. Baldwin (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 978, 1002-1006

Contra: People v. Thompson (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 1058, 1075-1081, review granted Sept. 24, 2025, S292540

Fourth Holding:

Nonetheless, interpreting section 1170(d) to be limited to formal LWOP sentences plainly raises a serious constitutional question, and it is well-established that statutes should be construed to avoid constitutional questions where they are reasonably susceptible to a reasonable alternative interpretation that do not raise such questions. Accordingly, we conclude that section 1170(d) should be interpreted to apply to de facto as well as formal LWOP sentences.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 862 [If a statute is susceptible of two constructions, one of which will raise serious and doubtful constitutional questions, the court will adopt the construction which, without doing violence to the reasonable meaning of the language used, will render it free from doubt as to its constitutionality.]

People v. Miracle (2018) 6 Cal.5th 318, 339 [A statute must be construed, if reasonably possible, in a manner that avoids a serious constitutional question.]

Fifth Holding:

The trial court held that the defendant was not serving a de facto LWOP sentence because he is eligible for youthful offender parole under section 3051 and, in fact, already has received a youthful offender parole hearing. We disagree. Youthful offender parole is available to all juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences, whether formal or not.

Moreover, the Legislature extended youthful offender parole hearings to juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences in 2017, five years after enacting section 1170(d). In so doing, the Legislature did not indicate that it intended to end resentencing for juvenile offenders with LWOP sentences under section 1170(d), and, as the Supreme Court has long recognized, absent an express declaration of legislative intent, we will find an implied repeal only when there is no rational basis for harmonizing the two potentially conflicting statutes.

Accordingly, in determining whether an individual was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole under section 1170(d), youthful offender parole should be disregarded.

Authority:

PEN 3051(b)(4)

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 845

Garris v. McCutchen (1997) 16 Cal.4th 469, 477

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 447-448

People v. Bagsby (2024) 106 Cal.App.5th 1040, 1061

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 628-629

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000763

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in declining to determine the defendant’s ability to pay fines and fees. Its stated basis was the probation office’s strong stance on rejecting the plea, based on the victim. After sentencing, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kopp.

First Holding:

A defendant may challenge the imposition of a punitive fine under the United States and California Constitutions’ excessive fines provisions. The California Supreme Court The court used the “fine” term to refer to penalties provided by the Legislature to punish a criminal offense and included restitution fines and parole revocation restitution fines within that category. Because its decision was issued after the defendant was sentenced, the defendant should be given the opportunity to develop an excessive fines argument in the first instance on remand.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23, 30-31

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution [Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted]

Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution [Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.]

Second Holding:

Because the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s ability to pay the the court operations and court facilities assessments despite his request, we must remand for such consideration. Because there is no rational basis for distinguishing criminal defendants from indigent civil litigants—who are afforded waivers for similar assessments—equal protection principles require the trial court to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing these ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 14-15, 24-31

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000733

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We strike the protective order, because none of the offenses involved domestic violence. We also remand to give the defendant the opportunity to present evidence on his ability to pay the restitution fine and assessments.

First Holding:

Although initially charged with crimes involving domestic violence, his guilty plea was to a crime that did not involved domestic violence as defined in section 13700 or in Family Code section 6211. His crime is not specifically listed in section 136.2(i)(1), and it does not require registration as a sex offender. Hence, the trial court was without authority at sentencing to issue the criminal protective order for the victim’s benefit under section 136.2(i)(1). As the court did not have statutory authority to issue the criminal protective order, it must be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2022) 76 Cal.App.5th 887, 901

Second Holding:

The court imposed a $2,400 restitution fine, as well as a $2,400 parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. The court also imposed a $40 court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) and a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)).

After sentencing, while this matter was still on appeal, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Kopp. As to punitive fines, including restitution fines, the court found that due process does not require a trial court to hold an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine.

However, the court also noted that both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit excessive fines, and held that the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines.

As to court operations assessments and court facilities assessments, which are ancillary costs, the court held that equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment.

Because neither defendant nor the trial court had the benefit of Kopp’s reasoning and holding at the time of the sentencing hearing, we will direct the court to give defendant an opportunity to challenge the restitution fine and the assessments under Kopp.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13, 23, 30

Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000708

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Once the court found that the defendant had the inability to pay the court operations assessment fee or the court facilities assessment, it was error for the court to impose the fees but stay them until the defendant had the ability to pay.

First Holding:

If a defendant requests, a trial court must 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). Because the Legislature has provided fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a criminal defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30, 31

Second Holding:

Here, the trial court found that the defendant was unable to pay the court operations and court facilities assessments, but instead of waiving these fees as a court would do for an indigent civil litigant, the court imposed and stayed the ancillary costs. Because the court in this case should have waived these fees upon its finding of an inability to pay, rather than stay their execution, we will strike the fees.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30 [noting lack of justification for denying criminal defendants the right to seek a waiver of certain ancillary costs when civil litigants facing the same costs may receive such a waiver]

Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000703

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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]

Equal protection, Probation Parole PRCS, Standard of review

Case 000622

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Defendant, age 23 at the time of the offense, was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). He sought a Franklin hearing to be able to present evidence that could be considered as mitigating factors related to his youth at the time of the crime in the event there is ever a parole hearing. The trial court denied the motion to conduct the hearing, on the basis that LWOP inmates will never be considered for parole. Reversed. We cannot determine whether the basis of his conviction would render him eligible even if the reasoning in Briscoe regarding a violated of equal protection is sound. We remand the matter to allow defendant to establish he is entitled to a Franklin hearing.

First Holding:

A Franklin hearing permits parties to preserve evidence relevant to a future youthful offender parole hearing under section 3051. Certain persons are, however, categorically ineligible for youth offender parole hearings, including cases in which an individual is sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a controlling offense that was committed after the person had attained 18 years of age.

Authority:

In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 458-459

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

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 843

Second Holding:

California’s youth offender parole statute offers opportunities for early release to certain persons who are incarcerated for crimes they committed at a young age. To this end, section 3051 requires the Board of Parole Hearings to hold a parole hearing for the purpose of reviewing the parole suitability of any prisoner who was 25 years of age or younger at the time of the controlling offense. The minimum number of years of incarceration before eligibility was 15, 20, or 25 years, depending on the length and nature of the sentence imposed.

Authority:

PEN 3051

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 843

Third Holding:

The court in Briscoe concluded, notwithstanding Hardin, section 3051 violates equal protection as applied to youth offenders who were convicted as a major participant who acted with reckless indifference to human life. Defendant may have been so convicted and therefore might be entitled to relief under section 3051. The trial court consequently erred in summarily denying defendant’s motion. Without taking a position on the correctness of Briscoe, we remand with directions to allow defendant the opportunity to demonstrate his eligibility for a Franklin hearing.

Authority:

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 485, 494

Fourth Holding:

As a result of changes in the law regarding the liability of persons who were not the actual killer, a person may now be found guilty of murder if the person was a major participant in the felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life as described in section 190.2(d). Section 190.2(d) is the section describing a special circumstance under which a person may be punished by death or LWOP.

Thus, a person may be convicted simply of first degree murder as a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life and be sentenced to either 25 years to life (the sentence for first degree murder without special circumstances) or LWOP (the sentence for the same act but in which the special circumstance was alleged that the defendant was a major participant in the underlying felony who acted with reckless indifference to human life).

Briscoe concluded that section 3051 purports to include the defendants convicted of the same behavior and received a sentence of 25 years to life, but to exclude those for whom the special circumstance describing the same behavior was alleged and found true and an LWOP sentence was imposed.

Briscoe concluded that section 3051 improperly denied equal protection under those circumstances, and that such individual should be eligible for consideration under section 3051 even if the sentence was LWOP.

Authority:

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 494

Fifth Holding:

The equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state may deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. At core, the requirement of equal protection ensures that the government does not treat a group of people unequally without some justification.

The degree of justification required to satisfy equal protection depends on the type of unequal treatment at issue. For the classification at stake here, based on a person’s criminal sentence, the general rule is that legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.

A court applying this standard finds a denial of equal protection only if there is no rational relationship between a disparity in treatment and some legitimate government purpose.

We analyze equal protection claims de novo

Authority:

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 847

People v. Briscoe (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 479, 487

Sixth Holding:

Hardin considered that it does not violate equal protection for section 3051 to apply to those sentenced to LWOP who committed the offense before they were 18 years old but not apply to those sentenced to LWOP for crimes committed as an adult.

The defendant Hardin did not demonstrate that the Legislature acted irrationally in declining to grant the possibility of parole to young adult offenders convicted of special circumstance murder, even as it has granted youth offender hearings to young adults convicted of other offenses.

But the court made this conclusion without foreclosing the possibility of other as-applied challenges to the statute.

Authority:

People v. Hardin (2024) 15 Cal.5th 834, 838-839

Equal protection, Sentencing

Case 000597

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

For a crime committed when he was under age 18 and for which he was tried as an adult and sentenced to 46 years to life, the defendant filed a petition under section 1170(d) to recall his sentence and be resentenced, claiming he was sentenced to the functional equivalent of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). The trial court denied the petition, concluding that the sentence was not the functional equivalent of LWOP. Reversed.

First Holding:

The issue regarding what sentences constitute the functional equivalent of LWOP is one the Supreme Court is set to resolve in Munoz.

Authority:

People v. Munoz (2025) 110 Cal.App.5th 499, review granted June 25, 2025, S290828

Second Holding:

Defendant maintained he was eligible for resentencing even though he was not given an LWOP sentence because he was serving a sentence that was the functional equivalent of LWOP and treating him as if he were ineligible for resentencing would accordingly violate equal protection principles. We agree with Heard and other precedent that holds defendants who are serving the functional equivalent of LWOP, not just those serving an actual LWOP sentence, must be eligible for section 1170(d) relief pursuant to equal protection guarantees—and the availability of a youthful offender parole hearing does not undercut this conclusion.

Authority:

People v. Heard (2022) 83 Cal.App.5th 608, 628-629

People v. Contreras (2018) 4 Cal.5th 349

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 440

Due process, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000580

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Judgment is reversed and remanded for the court to consider the fines and fees imposed with regard to ability to pay and under the excessive fines doctrine.

First Holding:

In Kopp, the Supreme Court addressed how court-ordered payments should be analyzed when a defendant claims inability to pay. There are three categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution. “Fines” refers to penalties inflicted by the sovereign for commission of offenses. I.e., “fine” refers to a legislatively provided punishment following a criminal conviction.

By contrast, “ancillary costs” refers to payments that are generally not intended to punish for the commission of a crime but instead are funding mechanisms, created by the Legislature to reimburse a government agencies for expenditures or to otherwise fund a broad assortment of services. “Restitution” refers to payments made to compensate crime victims for economic loss caused by an offense.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 9, 11-12

Second Holding:

Restitution fines under section 1202.4 constitute punishment and therefore fines rather than true restitution and that parole revocation restitution fines under section 1202.45—which are in the same amount as restitution fines—are likewise punitive and therefore fines. Such fines do not need to be structured to reflect each person’s ability and avoid disproportionate burdens. Accordingly, due process does not require courts to consider the ability of defendants to pay fines before imposing them. Instead, excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13-14, 22-23

Bearden v. Georgia (1983) 461 U.S. 660, 666, fn. 8

San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Third Holding:

Ancillary costs or assessments should be imposed on criminal defendants only if they have the ability to pay the costs, on equal protection grounds. Kopp noted that the Legislature has enacted a robust fee waiver system in civil cases. In addition, because both the civil operations and facilities assessments imposed on the defendant in Kopp were enacted to raise money for the courts and were ultimately deposited into the same fund, the Supreme Court concluded that there appears no rational basis to deny only indigent criminal defendants the ability to avoid those costs.

Accordingly, the court in Kopp directed the trial court on remand to consider the defendant’s ability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8 or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 24-30

Elements of crime, Equal protection, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000577

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The conviction of section 270 must be reduced from a felony to a misdemeanor.

First Holding:

When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, we review the entire record in the light most favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial evidence — that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value — from which a reasonable trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

We determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. This determination presumes in support of the judgment the existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence. In considering a sufficiency challenge, we do not reweigh evidence or reevaluate a witness’s credibility.

Authority:

People v. Cardenas (2025) 18 Cal.5th 797, 821

People v. Oyler (2025) 17 Cal.5th 756, 820

Second Holding:

Section 270 (failure to provide necessities to a minor child) states that violation is a misdemeanor unless a court of competent jurisdiction has made a final adjudication in either a civil or a criminal action that a person is the parent of a minor child and the person has notice of such adjudication. While felony punishment can be imposed constitutionally on persons previously found guilty of a violation of section 270, the statute violates equal protection to the extent felony punishment is grounded solely on an earlier legal determination of paternity.

Authority:

PEN 270

People v. Gregori (1983) 144 Cal.App.3d 353, 356