People v. Lopez CA5

California Court of Appeal Jun 15, 2022 No. F083013Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his challenge to the imposition of fines and fees by failing to object at sentencing, and further concluded that the decision in People v. Dueñas was wrongly decided. Additionally, the court found that any error regarding an ability-to-pay determination was harmless because the defendant has the ability to pay the fines and fees through future prison wages.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred by imposing fines and fees without determining the defendant's ability to pay under People v. Dueñas.
Whether the defendant forfeited his challenge to the fines and fees by failing to object at the sentencing hearing.
Whether the trial court's failure to conduct an ability-to-pay hearing constituted prejudicial error.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“We disagree with the holding in Dueñas, find the matter need not be remanded on this issue, and that any error by counsel was not prejudicial.”

“In any event, even if we agreed with Dueñas, we would still reject defendant’s constitutional claims and find any error arising from the court’s failure to make an ability to pay finding was harmless”

Filed 6/15/22 P. v. Lopez 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NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, F083013 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Madera Super. Ct. v. No. MCR064904)

DAVID GUILLEN LOPEZ, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Madera County. Mitchell C. Rigby, Judge. Allan E. Junker, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Ian P. Whitney, and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Hill, P. J., Levy, J. and Poochigian, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant and defendant David Guillen Lopez pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a controlled substance with a firearm (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)) and was sentenced to six years in state prison pursuant to a negotiated disposition. On appeal, defendant contends the court improperly ordered him to pay the restitution fine and fees without determining his ability to pay in violation of his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection under People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On November 13, 2019, a complaint was filed in the Superior Court of Madera County charging defendant with committing the following offenses on November 9, 2019: counts 1, 2, and 3, possession of a controlled substance with a firearm, respectively, a .38-caliber revolver pistol, a .22-caliber semiautomatic rifle, and a .243- caliber semiautomatic rifle (Health & Saf. Code, § 11370.1, subd. (a)); count 4, possession of a firearm by a felon (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1));1 count 5, carrying an unregistered loaded handgun (§ 2585, subd. (a)); count 6, possession of ammunition by a felon (§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)); count 7, transportation of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11379, subd. (a)); count 8, possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378); count 9, transportation of marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11360); count 10, driving without a valid license (Veh. Code, § 12500, subd. (a)); and count 11, misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia for smoking a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)); with one prior strike conviction (§ 1170.12, subds. (a)– (d), § 667, subds. (b)–(i)).

People v. Lopez CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief