People v. Bronson CA2/6

Filed 1/27/21 P. v. Bronson CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B302855 (Super. Ct. No. 19F-02628) Plaintiff and Respondent, (San Luis Obispo County)

v.

ROBERT TROY BRONSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Robert Troy Bronson appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to delete or permanently stay a $10,000 restitution fine imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4.1 We affirm the denial of the motion. FACTS Bronson pled no contest to continuous sexual abuse of a child (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a)) and a lewd act on a child (§ 288, subd. (a)). Bronson sexually abused a child.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code.

The trial court sentenced Bronson to 18 years in state prison and, in addition to other fines and fees, imposed a $10,000 restitution fine. (§ 1202.4.) Bronson subsequently filed a motion seeking to delete or permanently stay the restitution fine. The motion was based on his claim that he lacked the ability to pay the fine. The trial court denied the motion. DISCUSSION Section 1202.4, subdivision (a)(3)(A) requires the trial court to impose a restitution fine on a person convicted of a crime. The amount of the fine is set at the discretion of the trial court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. (Id., subd. (b)(1).) The fine for a person convicted of a felony must be not less than $300 and not more than $10,000. (Ibid.) The court may determine the amount of the fine as the product of the minimum fine multiplied by the number of years of imprisonment multiplied by the number of felony counts of which the defendant is convicted. (Id., subd. (b)(2).) Inability to pay “may be considered” only in increasing the amount of the fine above the minimum. (Id., subd. (c).) Bronson relies on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. In Dueñas, the Court of Appeal held that the imposition of criminal fines and fees without a hearing and a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay violates due process. The court recognized that section 1202.4, subdivision (c) prohibits the trial court from considering the defendant’s ability to pay the minimum restitution fine. The court held that the trial court must “stay the execution of the fine until and unless the People demonstrate that the defendant has the present ability to pay the fine.” (Dueñas, at p. 1172.)