People v. Kenyon CA3

Filed 11/10/25 P. v. Kenyon CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Shasta) ----

THE PEOPLE, C102604

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 24F6178)

v.

JASON MICHAEL KENYON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), the Eighth Amendment, and equal protection principles, defendant Jason Michael Kenyon appeals the imposition of a $300 fine imposed under Penal Code1 section 1202.4 without an ability to pay hearing. Recognizing his trial counsel did not object to the fines and fees, Kenyon alternatively claims counsel was ineffective. We affirm the judgment.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

BACKGROUND The complaint in this case charged Kenyon with burglary (§ 459) and vandalism (§ 594, subd. (b)(1)) with a prior strike conviction (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12). In November 2024, Kenyon pled no contest to vandalism of more than $400 and admitted the strike allegation. (§§ 594, subd. (b)(1), 1170.12.) In accordance with his plea agreement, the trial court sentenced him to one year four months in state prison, doubled to two years eight months for the strike prior, imposed a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), imposed and suspended an equal parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), and retained jurisdiction over restitution for the victims. Defense counsel did not object nor request an ability to pay hearing. Kenyon timely appealed and the trial court denied his request for a certificate of probable cause. Pursuant to section 1237.2, Kenyon moved the trial court to stay the fines and fees pending an ability to pay hearing. The trial court denied the request. DISCUSSION Without objection, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.4) and a stayed $300 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45). Citing Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, Kenyon now contends imposing these fines without finding he had the ability to pay them violated the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines and deprived him of equal protection. In Dueñas, the court reversed an order imposing the court operations and the criminal conviction assessments (§ 1465.8; Gov. Code, § 70373) after concluding that it was “fundamentally unfair” and violated due process under the federal and California Constitutions to impose the assessments without determining a defendant’s ability to pay. (Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at p. 1168.) Dueñas also concluded that the execution of a restitution fine under section 1202.4 “must be stayed unless and until the trial court holds an ability to pay hearing and concludes that the defendant has the present ability to pay the restitution fine.” (Dueñas, at p. 1164.)