People v. Alvarado CA2/3

California Court of Appeal Aug 21, 2020 No. B299695Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court did not violate the defendant's due process rights or abuse its discretion by imposing fines and fees without a further ability-to-pay hearing, as the defendant failed to present evidence of inability to pay and the court reasonably considered potential future prison wages.

Issues

Whether the trial court's imposition of fines and fees without a further ability-to-pay hearing violated the defendant's due process rights under People v. Dueñas.
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's request to stay the fines and fees.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“First, we agree with other courts that have concluded Dueñas was wrongly decided.”

“The situation in which Alvarado has put himself does not implicate the same due process concerns at issue in the factually unique Dueñas case.”

“Here, the trial court did consider Alvarado’s ability to pay. It considered and rejected Alvarado’s conclusory assertion that he lacked the ability to pay, reasoning that he would earn a “de minimis amount” for his labor in prison.”

Filed 8/21/20 P. v. Alvarado CA2/3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B299695

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA430049) v.

KEVIN ALVARADO,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Craig J. Mitchell, Judge. Affirmed. Myra Sun, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Chung L. Mar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. _________________________

Defendant and appellant Kevin Alvarado pled no contest to second degree murder in 2019. The trial court sentenced him to a term of 15 years to life in prison, and, over his objection, imposed various fines and fees. Alvarado contends that under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), the trial court’s inquiry into his ability to pay did not satisfy the requirements of due process; its denial of his request to stay the fees and fines was an abuse of discretion; and the matter must be remanded for an adequate ability-to-pay hearing. We disagree, and affirm the judgment. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND1 In September 2014, 17-year-old Alvarado shot and killed Bryan Rubio. While in custody between 2017 and 2019, Alvarado was charged with four unrelated counts of custodial possession of a weapon (Pen. Code, § 4502, subd. (a))2 and one count of making criminal threats (§ 422).3 He also was found in possession of “pruno,” a prisoner-made alcoholic beverage. On April 4, 2019, Alvarado pled no contest to second degree murder. (§ 187, subd. (a).) The court advised that it was required to impose a restitution fine, a suspended parole revocation restitution fine, a court security fee, and a conviction fine. Alvarado stated that he understood. Defense counsel stated

People v. Alvarado CA2/3

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION THREE

THE PEOPLE, B299695

KEVIN ALVARADO,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

EDMON, P. J.

EGERTON, J.

DHANIDINA, J.

AI Brief