People v. Mays CA2/5

California Court of Appeal Oct 20, 2020 No. B301827Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court affirmed the trial court's imposition of fines and assessments, holding that the trial court properly assessed the defendant's ability to pay and that a determination of present ability to pay is not strictly required.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by imposing fines and assessments without conducting a hearing on the defendant's present ability to pay.

Disposition. Affirmed.

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Contrary to defendant’s assertion, the trial court in this case did assess defendant’s ability to pay.”

“Defendant contends that the trial court was obligated to “make a determination that he had the present ability to pay” the fine and assessments (italics added). We disagree.”

Filed 10/20/20 P. v. Mays CA2/5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B301827

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA477941) v.

RODNEY MAYS,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Mildred Escobedo, Judge. Affirmed. Linda L. Gordon, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Scott A. Taryle and Viet H. Nguyen, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant and appellant Rodney Mays appeals from a judgment of conviction following a no contest plea. Defendant argues the trial court’s imposition of a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code,1 § 1465.8), a $30 court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), without determining whether he had the ability to pay said assessments and fine, violated his right to due process under the federal and California constitutions. Defendant cites in support People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas).2 We affirm.

II. BACKGROUND

On October 15, 2019, defendant, pursuant to a plea agreement, pleaded no contest to violating Vehicle Code section 10851, subdivision (a), driving or taking a vehicle without consent. The trial court imposed a sentence of two years and dismissed the remaining count of the information. The trial court also imposed a $40 court operations assessment, a $30 court facilities assessment, a $300 restitution fine, and a $300 parole

People v. Mays CA2/5

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION FIVE

THE PEOPLE, B301827

RODNEY MAYS,

I. INTRODUCTION

II. BACKGROUND

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III. DISCUSSION

IV. DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.

KIM, J.

RUBIN, P. J.

MOOR, J.

AI Brief