Tag Archives: Excessive punishment

Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Statutory interpretation

Case 000917

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We are not convinced that section 1202.4 is facially unconstitutional, but we will remand this matter to the trial court to give the defendant an opportunity to bring an as-applied challenge to the restitution fine under the excessive fines clauses of the Eighth Amendment and California Constitution.

First Holding:

Section 1202.4(b) requires that in every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. For a felony, the minimum fine is $300 and the maximum is $10,000. Fines for a misdemeanor range from $150 to $1000.

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 pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (b).

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(b)

Second Holding:

Due process did not require an ability to pay hearing before imposing every punitive fine. Kopp instructed instead that the excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines. The excessive fines analysis arises under the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 17 of the California Constitution.

Authority:

U.S. Const. Eighth Amendment

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

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

Third Holding:

Following Bajakajian, our Supreme Court in Lockyer stated that four factors are relevant to determining whether a fine is unconstitutionally excessive:

(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.

Kopp observed that a fine is excessive only if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of the offense that it punishes, a deferential standard that recognizes that the Legislature makes judgments in the first instance about the appropriate punishment for offenses and judicial determinations of the gravity of a particular criminal offense are inherently imprecise.

Kopp remanded to give the defendant the opportunity to raise such a challenge.

Authority:

United States v. Bajakajian (1998) 524 U.S. 321, 327–328

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23-24

Fourth Holding:

A statute will be interpreted to avoid serious constitutional questions if such an interpretation is fairly possible. It would be remarkable and plainly unconstitutional for the Legislature to prohibit a trial court from considering a defendant’s invocation of a constitutional right.

We will therefore not construe section 1202.4 as preventing defendants from raising an excessive fines challenge to the minimum fine. Instead, we read the statute as simply establishing that as a statutory matter in the absence of an excessive fines challenge, a trial court cannot refrain from imposing the minimum $300 restitution fine based on a defendant’s inability to pay alone.

This is congruent with Kopp and excessive fines analysis jurisprudence, which considers a defendant’s ability to pay as one of four relevant factors, not as dispositive on its own.

Authority:

People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 682

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728

People v. Aviles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1070 [While ability to pay may be part of the proportionality analysis, it is not the only factor.]

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23 [citing Aviles with approval]

Fifth Holding:

Neither the defendant nor the trial court had the benefit of Kopp when the defendant was sentenced, so she did not present her challenge to the restitution fine through the proper excessive fines analysis that Kopp makes clear is appropriate.

Accordingly, as Kopp itself did, we will remand this matter to the trial court to give the defendant the the opportunity to assert the legal analyses applicable to such a challenge and argue how the particular facts of this case inform such an inquiry.

Authority:

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

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

Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000857

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court imposed an incorrect term for one of the counts of conviction. It appears that the court may not have considered whether section 654 applies to some counts. And the court’s medical costs order requires clarification.

First Holding:

The court imposed one year in the county jail for violation of Health and Safety Code section 11364 (possession of narcotics paraphernalia), a misdemeanor. Because there is no specific sentence defined for that offense, the general provisions of section 11374 apply.

Every person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of the division that includes section 11364, except one for which a penalty is otherwise in that division specifically provided, is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by a fine in a sum not less than thirty dollars ($30) nor more than five hundred dollars ($500), or by imprisonment for not less than 15 nor more than 180 days.

It was error to impose a jail term greater than 180 days, and the sentence imposed was an unauthorized sentence.

Authority:

HSC 11364

HSC 11374

People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26 [a sentence is generally unauthorized when it cannot be lawfully imposed under any circumstance in a particular case]

Second Holding:

On remand, the trial court may reconsider all components of defendant’s sentence, including whether section 654 applies to counts 3 and 4.

Authority:

People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994

Third Holding:

The trial court ordered defendant to pay for his own medical costs or medical fees while incarcerated. The trial court was not authorized to require him to pay his medical costs or fees while in prison. The probation report cited section 4011 as the authority for the medical costs order, but that section applies only to medical care of prisoners while in a city or county jail and not costs incurred during state level incarceration.

Further, section 5007.5 prohibits the Secretary from imposing a fee for inmate-initiated medical visits in prison. The statute does not prohibit requiring a prisoner to pay any other medical fees or bills that may be charged to him while incarcerated.

On remand, the trial court is instructed to clarify its order requiring defendant to pay his medical costs and fees in accordance with Penal Code section 5007.5.

Authority:

PEN 5007.5 [prohibiting the Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation from charging a fee for an inmate-initiated medical visit of an inmate confined in the state prison.]

PEN 4011 [concerning incarceration in a city or county jail]

Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000820

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Eighth Amendment, Sentencing

Case 000800

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It is not clear if the court understood the scope of its sentencing authority. The record is ambiguous as to whether the court found the sentence constitutionally permissible or believed it was obligated to impose the sentence regardless of any constitutional concerns. We accordingly reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

The One Strike law mandates a sentence of 15 or 25 years to life for certain designated sexual offenses committed under specified aggravating circumstances. A lewd or lascivious act under section 288(a) is a qualifying sexual offense. The default sentence is 15 years to life if the jury has found the crime was committed under one of the circumstances listed in subdivision (e) of the One Strike law, among which is the multiple victim circumstance. But if multiple victims are under the age of 14 years old, the sentence is 25 years to life. A court shall not strike any allegation, admission, or finding of any of the circumstances specified in subdivision (e) for any person who is subject to punishment under the One Strike law.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

In re Vaquera (2024) 15 Cal.5th 706, 713

Second Holding:

Where, as here, a defendant contends a sentence constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, the judicial inquiry commences with great deference to the Legislature. Yet legislative authority remains ultimately circumscribed by the constitutional provision forbidding the infliction of cruel or unusual punishment. As pertinent here, article I, section 17, of the California Constitution proscribes cruel or unusual punishment. A prison sentence violates this proscription if it is so disproportionate to the crime for which it is inflicted that it shocks the conscience and offends fundamental notions of human dignity.

Authority:

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

People v. Martinez (1999) 76 Cal.App.4th 489, 494

In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 414, superseded by statute on another ground as stated in In re Palmer (2021) 10 Cal.5th 959.

People v. Christensen (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 781, 806

Third Holding:

Courts use a three-part test to determine if a particular sentence is disproportionate to the offense for which it is imposed. First, courts consider the nature of the offense and/or the offender, with particular regard to the degree of danger both present to society. Second, courts compare the challenged punishment with punishments imposed for more serious crimes in the same jurisdiction. Finally, courts compare the challenged punishment with punishments imposed for the same offense in other jurisdictions.

Authority:

People v. Christensen (2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 781, 806

In re Lynch (1972) 8 Cal.3d 410, 425-427

Fourth Holding:

A mandatory punishment provided by law may contravene constitutional principles and a court has the authority to intervene under such circumstances to prevent an unconstitutional punishment from being imposed. Here, it is not clear if the trial court was aware of its authority to not impose a life sentence under the One Strike law assuming it found the sentence amounted to cruel or unusual punishment. The court specifically stated it would not have imposed the mandated sentence if it had discretion. The court noted the prosecutor previously offered a non-life sentence, and the court lamented that defendant’s counsel did not represent him during settlement discussions because the court believed a life sentence could have been avoided.

But the court concluded that it didn’t find that that statute is cruel and unusual, and so that it had no choice but to give the sentence. The court later stated that it didn’t believe it is a cruel and unusual statute because there were multiple victims under the age of 14. Given the court’s indication that it viewed a different sentence as more appropriate, it is not clear if the court merely found the statute was not cruel and unusual on its face or if it found the administration of the sentence as applied to defendant was not cruel and unusual punishment. Under these circumstances, remand is appropriate.

We accordingly remand the matter for the trial court to clarify whether the mandated statutory sentence as applied to defendant constitutes cruel or unusual punishment. If the court finds the mandated statutory sentence is constitutional, it may impose the sentence. If the court finds the mandated statutory sentence is unconstitutional, it may exercise its authority to impose a different sentence. In doing so, we express no opinion as to whether the mandated statutory sentence is cruel or unusual punishment as applied to defendant. The trial court is free to clarify its holding on remand.

Authority:

People v. Felix (2003) 108 Cal.App.4th 994, 999

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

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000728

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court should have vacated the restitution fine that was imposed more than 10 years earlier. We remand the case for the court to determine the defendant’s ability to pay the parole revocation restitution fine, which is not vacated by section 1465.9(d).

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 added subdivision (d) to section 1465.9, which provides that, upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. It does not, however, apply to the parole revocation restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

In Kopp, our Supreme Court clarified that, although fines may properly be imposed as punishment for crime, the excessive fines analysis under the state and federal Constitutions is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines, such as parole revocation fines. In addition, a trial court must conduct an ability to pay hearing before imposing a restitution fine (or corresponding parole revocation fine) that exceeds the statutory minimum of $300.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1 23, 17, 30

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000582

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is reversed and remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court, in accordance with this opinion and Kopp, to determine whether the defendant has the ability to pay the various fines, fees, and assessments it previously imposed.

Holding:

While this case was on appeal, the Kopp court concluded that a trial court must conduct an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing a (1) restitution fine above the statutory minimum of $300; or ancillary fees. The Supreme Court also found that, if requested by the defendant, the court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment (sec. 1465(a)(1)) or a court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)), allowing the parties on remand to present any relevant evidence or argument on the matter. On remand the defendant shall be afforded the opportunity to assert legal analyses applicable to such a challenge under the excessive fines clauses and argue how the particular facts of this case inform such an inquiry.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

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

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

Second Holding:

Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine pursuant to section 1202.4(c).

Authority:

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

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

Amelioration, Discretion, Eighth Amendment, Juveniles, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000574

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant filed a petition under section 1170(d) for recall of his sentence. The trial court did not appoint counsel and summarily denied appellant’s petition to recall because it found he had not been incarcerated in the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for at least 15 years as required by section 1170(d)(1)(A). We find the trial court’s ruling on the calculation of appellant’s period of incarceration was erroneous as a matter of law, and appellant’s preconviction custody must be included to calculate he had been incarcerated for 15 years when he filed his section 1170(d) petition.

The matter is remanded for the superior court to appoint counsel and conduct the hearing as provided in section 1170(d).

First Holding:

When a defendant who was under 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the offense for which the defendant was sentenced to imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole has been incarcerated for at least 15 years, the defendant may submit to the sentencing court a petition for recall and resentencing, if the defendant meets additional statutory requirements.

Authority:

PEN 1170(d)

Second Holding:

When a trial court is not aware of the full scope of its sentencing discretion, a defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing unless the record clearly indicates that the trial court would have reached the same conclusion even if it had been aware that it had such discretion.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 425

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 771-772

Third Holding:

The empanelment of separate juries at the defendant’s original trial in 2010 was likely based on Aranda and Bruton. Broadly stated, the Aranda/Bruton rule declares that a defendant is deprived of his or her Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses when a facially incriminating statement of a nontestifying codefendant is introduced at their joint trial, even if the jury is instructed to consider the statement only against the declarant. The problem addressed in Bruton and Aranda may be solved by the use of separate juries for codefendants, with each jury to be excused at appropriate times to avoid exposure to inadmissible evidence.

Authority:

People v. Aranda (1965) 63 Cal.2d 518

Bruton v. United States (1968) 391 U.S. 123

People v. Gallardo (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 51, 68

People v. Jackson (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1164, 1208

People v. Washington (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 19, 27

Fourth Holding:

Appellant filed his petition based on the recall and resentencing provisions of section 1170(d), effective January 1, 2013. Under Graham, the Eighth Amendment prohibits LWOP sentences for juvenile offenders who committed non-homicide offenses. In response to Graham, the Legislature enacted section 1170(d), creating a recall and resentencing procedure for certain juvenile offenders sentenced to LWOP terms.

Authority:

In re Kirchner (2017) 2 Cal.5th 1040, 1049

People v. Gibson (2016) 2 Cal.App.5th 315, 322–323

Graham v. Florida (2010) 560 U.S. 48

People v. Sorto (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 435, 442

Fifth Holding:

On appeal, we review statutory interpretations de novo. We review the trial court’s factual findings to determine whether they are supported by substantial evidence, and do not reweigh or reinterpret the evidence.

Authority:

People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1032

People v. Millard (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 7, 26

Sixth Holding:

Absent a specific statutory definition of “has been incarcerated for at least 15 years” we may look to its plain meaning as understood by the ordinary person, which would typically be a dictionary definition. The Legislature did not use the word sentenced in section 1170(d)(1)(A). Instead, it used the word “incarcerated.”

Based on the plain meaning of “incarcerated,” the defendant’s period of incarceration for purposes of a section 1170,(d)(1)(A) began to run on the date the defendant was placed in jail, i.e., incarcerated, for the relevant charges.

Authority:

People v. Ruiz (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1031, 1032

Seventh Holding:

Section 1171 expressly addresses the trial court’s procedures in postconviction proceedings to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. It defines a postconviction proceeding to mean a proceeding to modify a sentence or conviction pursuant to an ameliorative statute. Ameliorative statutes include, but are not limited to, Sections 1170.18, 1172.1, 1172.6, 1172.7, and 1172.75. Section 1171(c)(1) states that upon receiving a request to begin a postconviction proceeding that is authorized in law, the court shall consider whether to appoint counsel to represent the defendant. This section does not prevent the court from assigning counsel at a later time.

Authority:

PEN 1171