People v. Idiaquez CA4/1

California Court of Appeal Sep 22, 2020 No. D076162Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the imposition of a $300 restitution fine on an indigent defendant did not violate due process and was supported by substantial evidence of the defendant's future ability to pay.

Issues

Whether the imposition of a restitution fine on an indigent defendant violates due process under People v. Dueñas.
Whether the trial court's finding that the defendant had the ability to pay the restitution fine was supported by substantial evidence.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Dueñas held that it is a violation of due process to impose a restitution fine on indigent defendants without first determining if they have the present ability to pay.”

“we disagree with Dueñas on the applicability of due process in situations like this one.”

“the question is whether there is substantial evidence on the record to support the court’s conclusion that the $300 restitution fine was not excessive as it pertains to defendant’s ability to pay.”

Filed 9/22/20 P. v. Idiaquez CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076162

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. (Super. Ct. No. JCF002265)

ALEJANDRO IDIAQUEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Imperial County, Christopher J. Plourd and Marco D. Nuñez, Judges. Affirmed. Pauline E. Villanueva, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Jennifer B. Truong, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. Defendant Alejandro Idiaquez pled no contest to one count of possessing a dangerous weapon by an inmate. The court sentenced him to

two years in prison and imposed fines, fees, and assessments. Defendant objected that he had no ability to pay, and the court stayed them all for one year stating that the defendant had the ability to pay in the future. Defendant appeals the judgment contending that he lacks the ability to pay the restitution fine, and that the trial court’s determination that his ability to pay was unsupported by the evidence. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

During a hearing on July 3, 2019, defendant pled no contest1 to possession of a dangerous weapon by an inmate in violation of Penal Code section 4502, subdivision (a). The court gave him a two year minimum sentence and imposed the following: (1) a $30 criminal needs assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)); (2) a $40 court operations fee (Pen. Code, § 1465.8, subd. (a)); and (3) a $300 state restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)). The court also imposed and stayed a $300 parole revocation fine

People v. Idiaquez CA4/1

AI Brief

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D076162

ALEJANDRO IDIAQUEZ,

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

HUFFMAN, J.

O’ROURKE, J.

AI Brief