People v. Paynter CA3

Filed 5/25/22 P. v. Paynter CA3 (see dissenting opinion) NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C093953

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CR-003060)

v.

JOHN MARTIN PAYNTER,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant John Martin Paynter appeals the trial court’s imposition of court fees and a restitution fine after denying his request for an ability to pay hearing. We affirm. BACKGROUND Due to the limited scope of issues presented on appeal, a full recital of the facts is unnecessary. It suffices to say that, according to the victim, defendant had been “continually harassing and threatening him.” The victim reported that things came to a head the night of December 27, 2020, when defendant threatened to kill the victim and

1

his family and burn their house down, threw rocks at the victim’s house, and picked up a branch and raised it over his head to hit the victim. Defendant pleaded guilty to making criminal threats and admitted a prior serious felony allegation. The trial court sentenced defendant to eight years in prison and imposed a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), a $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, § 1465.8),1 a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and a $600 parole revocation restitution fine, stayed pending successful completion of parole (§ 1202.45). According to the presentencing probation report, defendant was then 40 years old, homeless, unemployed, addicted to drugs, and diagnosed with schizophrenia. However, he worked every day “doing odd jobs for several elderly people” and was “earning enough money to feed himself.” He had a valid driver’s license and had received his high school diploma. At sentencing, defense counsel stated, “[I]n regards to the fines and fees, we are asking the Court to allow [defendant] to serve it out concurrently or hold a hearing as to his ability to pay. I have been appointed to represent him as a public defender and as noted in the probation report he is currently without a home and without employment. So I don’t believe he would have the opportunity or ability to pay.” The court responded, “The fact that [defendant] may be currently indigent does not indicate that he is not able to pay those fines and fees. Even if I take what you say as an offer of proof, they will be incorporated into the record.” DISCUSSION Defendant contends he was entitled to a “proper hearing, affording [him] the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses to demonstrate whether he is indigent and