People v. Green CA3

Filed 4/7/25 P. v. Green CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C100762

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 62189279, 62189755) v.

ERIK HERMANN GREEN,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Erik Hermann Green guilty of six offenses in one case, and he later pled no contest to a seventh offense in a second case. Prior to sentencing for the first case, defendant asked the trial court to “impose the minimum” restitution fine of $300, pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1202.4, subdivision (b), rather than the maximum $10,000 fine recommended by the probation officer. The court granted defendant’s request and imposed a $300 fine for each case.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On appeal, defendant contends the trial court should have stayed the restitution fine until the People proved defendant had the ability to pay the fine. Defendant also contends the trial court should not have imposed the court operations assessment of $280 (§ 1465.8) or the criminal conviction assessment of $210 (Gov. Code, § 70373) without the People having proved his ability to pay those amounts. The People respond that defendant forfeited these arguments by not objecting to the imposed fines and assessments in the trial court. The People alternatively contend that defendant failed to carry his burden to establish his inability to pay, the record indicates defendant did have the ability to pay, and the two small fines are not excessive under the Eighth Amendment. We conclude defendant forfeited his contentions by not objecting to the imposed fines and assessments in the trial court and, even overlooking the forfeiture, defendant failed to carry his burden to establish that he could not pay the fines. We will affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND In Placer County case No. 62189755, a jury found defendant guilty of two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor, furnishing an alcoholic beverage to a minor, furnishing marijuana to a minor over 14 years of age, oral copulation of a person under 18 years of age, and sexual penetration with a person under 18 years of age. Defendant filed a sentencing brief stating: “Probation has recommended a $10,000 fine. The defendant is now indigent and does not have the ability to pay a fine. The defendant respectfully requests the Court to impose the minimum fine.” Defendant refused to participate in an interview with the probation officer and did not offer any evidence suggesting he lacked the ability to pay the fine. Instead, the mitigation evidence defendant submitted established that he had been a successful project manager in the commercial construction industry and had worked at a prison camp during his imprisonment for a prior federal offense.