California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 2021 No. E073723Unpublished
Filed 3/26/21 P. v. Devonshire CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E073723
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1701494)
CHAD OWEN DEVONSHIRE, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Thomas E. Kelly, Judge.
(Retired judge of the Santa Cruz Super. Ct. assigned by the Chief Justice pursuant to art.
VI, § 6 of the Cal. Const.) Dismissed.
Richard Power, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Julie L. Garland, Assistant
Attorney General, Arlene A. Sevidal, Collette Cavalier, and Susan Elizabeth Miller,
Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
PROCEDURAL HISTORY1
On September 8, 2017, an information charged defendant and appellant Chad
Owen Devonshire with inflicting corporal injury upon a spouse resulting in a traumatic
fees, or costs without having first presented the claim in the trial court.” (People v. Hall
(2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 502, 504.)
Because the sole issue in this appeal concerns the imposition of fines and fees, and
defendant failed to present this issue in the trial court, section 1237.2 compels that we
dismiss the appeal. (People v. Hall, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 505 [applying section
1237.2 and dismissing single-issue appeal in which the defendant alleged a Dueñas
violation]; cf. People v. Jenkins (2010) 40 Cal.App.5th 30, 38, review granted Nov. 26,
2019, S258729, review dismissed Jul. 29, 2020 [a defendant need not seek relief in the
trial court first “if issues other than the imposition or calculation of such fines,
assessments, and fees are being appealed”].)
4
In response to our request for additional briefing, defendant contends that section
1237.2 does not apply because he “was raising an inability to pay issue in Part A of his
opening brief argument.” We are not persuaded, given that the arguments are nearly
identical in substance. Both arguments concern an alleged “error in the imposition . . . of
fines, penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs.” (§ 1237.2.)
Defendant’s reliance on People v. Jenkins, supra, 40 Cal.App.5th 30, is misplaced.
In Jenkins, the court confirmed that “before an appeal may ‘be taken,’ a defendant must
first seek relief in the trial court for any error in the imposition or calculation of fines,
assessments, and fees, provided that issue is the only one being appealed.” (Id. at pp. 37-
38.) The court, however, went on to note that “if issues other than the imposition or
calculation of such fines, assessments, and fees are being appealed, such as in the instant
case, the limited exception provided by section 1237.2 to section 1235 no longer
applies. . . . The Court of Appeal then decides all the issues of the case, preventing
piecemeal litigation in separate forums.” (Id.at p. 38) The court concluded that “the
limited exception provided by section 1237.2 did not apply in this case because
defendant’s appeal is not limited to an error in the imposition or calculation of fines,
assessments, and fees.” (Id. at p. 39.) In Jenkins, in addition to the issue of fines, fees
and assessments, the court decided on another issue—whether the defendant qualified for
diversion under section 1001.36. The court ruled: “The judgment is conditionally
reversed. The matter is remanded to the trial court with directions to conduct a diversion
eligibility hearing under section 1001.36.” (Jenkins, at p. 41.) Contrary to defendant’s
argument, the court in Jenkins did not find an “inability to pay” argument to be the
5
additional issue to be determined on appeal to address the alleged error in the imposition
or calculation of fines, fees, and assessments.
Therefore, under section 1237.2, defendant is required to seek relief in the trial
court in the first instance before pursuing this single-issue appeal. Because he has failed
to do so, we must dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
MILLER J.
We concur:
RAMIREZ P. J.
MENETREZ J.
6
AI Brief
AI-generated · verify before citing
Holding. The court dismissed the appeal because the defendant failed to first present his challenge to the imposition of fines and fees in the trial court as required by Penal Code section 1237.2.
Issues
Whether an appeal challenging the imposition of fines and fees without an ability-to-pay determination must be dismissed under Penal Code section 1237.2 when it is the sole issue on appeal.
Disposition. Dismissed.
Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion
“Because the sole issue in this appeal concerns the imposition of fines and fees, and defendant failed to present this issue in the trial court, section 1237.2 compels that we dismiss the appeal.”
“Therefore, under section 1237.2, defendant is required to seek relief in the trial court in the first instance before pursuing this single-issue appeal.”