People v. Espinoza CA3

Filed 8/2/21 P. v. Espinoza CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091874

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 19CF06285)

v.

JAMON CHARLES ESPINOZA, SR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Jamon Charles Espinoza, Sr., pleaded guilty to corporal injury to a spouse and making criminal threats. On appeal, relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), he asserts court-imposed fines and fees should be stricken because he has no ability to pay them. We affirm.

1

BACKGROUND Defendant pleaded guilty to corporal injury to a spouse (Pen. Code, § 273.5, subd. (a))1 and making criminal threats (§ 422, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced defendant to an aggregate term of four years eight months in state prison. Regarding costs, the court found defendant had no ability to pay the domestic violence program fee and waived the presentence investigation report fee. The court, however, did impose a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), a $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45; stayed), an $80 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $60 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defense counsel “ask[ed] the [c]ourt to strike all fines and fees based on inability to pay.” The trial court responded: “The [c]ourt is going to deny that request. I did impose only the mandatory minimum fines. I struck as much as I, as I could besides that.” The abstract of judgment reflects imposition of the statutory mandatory minimum costs. Defendant timely appealed. After filing his notice of appeal, defendant sent a letter to the trial court, again telling the court he lacked the ability to pay any fines and fees. Relying on Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, he asked the trial court to strike the fines and fees imposed. The court denied his request. DISCUSSION On appeal, defendant once again invokes Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, contending the trial court violated due process principles and the Eight Amendment prohibition against excessive fines by imposing costs it believed were mandatory, and