People v. Adams

Filed 1/29/20 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, H045718 (Santa Clara County Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. Nos. C1511050, C1526753)

v.

QUINTEL OSHAY ADAMS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Quintel Oshay Adams appeals from a judgment sentencing him to prison after he violated the terms of probation in two cases. His sole appellate argument is that the trial court violated his federal constitutional right to due process by imposing fines and fees without first assessing his ability to pay. (Citing People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas).) As we will explain, we conclude that Dueñas was wrongly decided and will therefore affirm the judgment. I. TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS This case involves two felony complaints filed in 2015. (The underlying facts are irrelevant to the sole appellate issue.) Defendant was charged in the first case with felony assault by force likely to cause great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)), and two misdemeanors (case No. 1511050). As part of a negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to a fourth count added by oral amendment at the time of the plea: inflicting corporal injury on a person with whom he had a dating relationship. (Pen. Code, § 273.5.) Imposition of sentence was suspended, the original three counts were dismissed, and defendant was placed on formal probation. Defense counsel argued defendant did not have the ability to pay any fines or fees because he was homeless and

did not have a job. The trial court stated, “I won’t impose [the] $330 restitution fund fine” or the probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, 1202.44). However, the court imposed a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8); a $30 court facilities funding assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373); a $129.75 criminal justice administration fee (Gov. Code, §§ 29550–29550.3); and a $25-per-month probation supervision fee. A few months after being placed on probation in the first case, defendant was charged in the second case with failing to register as a sex offender (Pen. Code, § 290.011, subd. (b)) as a felony (case No. 1526753). In another negotiated disposition, defendant pleaded no contest to the charged count, imposition of sentence was suspended, and defendant again received a grant of formal probation. The court imposed a $300 restitution fine along with a $30 fee to cover administrative costs (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subds. (b)(1), (l)) and imposed but suspended a $300 probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.44); imposed a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8) and imposed a $30 court facilities funding assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court stated it would not “impose the criminal justice administration fee based on [defendant’s] inability to pay.” The trial court held a contested probation violation hearing regarding both cases in early 2018. (Defendant voluntarily chose not to attend the hearing and had similarly refused to appear at multiple previous hearings despite being in local custody.) A probation officer testified about defendant’s violations, including failing to participate in a substance abuse program, failing to complete court-ordered community service, and failing to report to probation as scheduled. The court revoked probation in both cases and sentenced defendant to two years in state prison, consisting of the lower term of two years for the corporal injury count in the first case, with a concurrent two-year term for failing to register as a sex offender in the second case. Defendant’s sentence was deemed served based on presentence credits. The previously suspended probation revocation fine 2