People v. Cameron CA3

Filed 8/10/21 P. v. Cameron CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Placer) ----

THE PEOPLE, C091788

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 62-149207, 62-168786, v. 62-169051)

PAUL ROSS CAMERON,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Paul Ross Cameron pleaded no contest to making criminal threats, misdemeanor stalking, and misdemeanor firearm offenses. The trial court placed defendant on three years’ formal probation and ordered him to pay various fines and fees. Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, defendant argues on appeal that the trial court’s imposition of certain fines and fees without a determination of his ability to pay them violates the Eighth Amendment and equal protection. We disagree and affirm the trial court’s judgment.

1

BACKGROUND The underlying facts of this case are not relevant to this appeal. The People charged defendant with numerous criminal offenses in four separate cases: case No. 62-149207 (case No. 207), case No. 62-156427 (case No. 427), case No. 62-168786 (case No. 786), and case No. 62-169051 (case No. 051).1 In a global resolution of those cases, defendant pleaded no contest to making criminal threats and misdemeanor stalking in consolidated case No. 207, and to misdemeanor firearm activity in violation of a restraining order in case No. 786. In exchange for defendant’s plea, the People moved to dismiss the remaining charges and case No. 051 with a Harvey2 waiver; the court granted the People’s motion. At sentencing, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence, placed defendant on three years’ formal probation, and ordered him to serve time in county jail. Defense counsel asked for a hearing on the issue of direct victim restitution and the trial court set that hearing. The trial court then struck “the base fines” and asked defense counsel if he wished to be heard on the imposition of fines and fees. Counsel responded in the affirmative: “[A]lthough [defendant] has private counsel, it was a situation where he and his wife refinanced their home. They are of limited means. He is disabled, quasi-retired or disabled. His wife is working roughly 35 hours per week, only just enough for them to get by. At this time we would be asking that any other fines and fees within the Court’s jurisdiction would be reduced or eliminated.” After hearing from counsel, the court ordered defendant to pay restitution fines as follows: “150 on the misdemeanor, 300 on the felony. Those are minimums. The