People v. Welty CA5

California Court of Appeal May 25, 2021 No. F079332Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his constitutional challenge to the restitution fine by failing to object in the trial court, that trial counsel was not ineffective, and that the restitution fine was not unconstitutional.

Issues

Did the defendant forfeit his constitutional challenge to the restitution fine by failing to object in the trial court?
Did trial counsel render ineffective assistance by failing to object to the restitution fine?
Does the imposition of a restitution fine without an ability-to-pay hearing violate the Eighth Amendment or due process?

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We conclude defendant forfeited his claim that imposition of the $3,000 restitution fine was unconstitutional, his trial counsel did not render ineffective assistance, and, on its merits, his Dueñas claim fails.”

“We disagree with the holding in Dueñas and find the matter need not be remanded for further findings.”

“Under that standard, the restitution fine imposed in this case is not grossly disproportionate to defendant’s level of culpability and the harm he inflicted on his young victim, and thus not excessive under the Eighth Amendment.”

Filed 5/25/21 P. v. Welty CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F079332 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. F17906264) v.

CHRISTOPHER ANDREW WELTY, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County. Timothy A. Kams, Judge. Julia J. Spikes, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Darren K. Indermill and Melissa Lipon, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Levy, Acting P.J., Poochigian, J. and Detjen, J.

INTRODUCTION In 2017, defendant Christopher Andrew Welty was arrested on suspicion of child molestation and subsequently charged by information with three counts of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under the age of 14 years, in violation of Penal Code section 288, subdivision (a)).1, 2 The charging document also alleged defendant had a prior serious felony conviction from 2007 for violating section 288, subdivision (a). (§§ 667, subds. (a)(1), (b)–(i), 1170.12, subds. (a)–(d).) On February 19, 2019, defendant pleaded no contest to three counts of sexual battery by restraint, in violation of section 243.4, subdivision (a), and admitted he had a prior serious felony conviction, in exchange for a stipulated sentence of 10 years in state prison and dismissal of the five-year prior serious felony conviction enhancement. (§ 667, subd. (a)(1).) On March 19, 2019, in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain, the trial court sentenced defendant to 10 years in state prison: the middle term of three years on count 1, doubled to six years based on defendant’s prior strike conviction; and consecutive two-year terms on counts 2 and 3. The court also imposed a restitution fine of $3,000 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), and a parole revocation restitution fine of $3,000 under section 1202.45, suspended. Based on inability to pay, the court suspended the court operations assessments under section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1); the court facilities assessments under Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1); the sex offense fine under section 290.3; and the probation report fee under section 1203.1b, subdivision (a).

People v. Welty CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief