People v. Hill CA1/2

Filed 8/2/22 P. v. Hill CA1/2 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A164599 v. (Alameda County Super. Ct. DEANDRE MAURICE HILL, No. 158165) Defendant and Appellant.

In 2008, defendant Deandre Hill was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison without parole. Hill was also ordered to pay various restitution, fines, and fees, including a $100 probation investigation fee imposed under Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (b) (section 1203.1(b)).1 We subsequently affirmed the conviction. (People v. Hill (Jan. 25, 2011, A124123 & A124244) [nonpub. opn.].) In 2022, Hill filed an ex parte motion to vacate the restitution, fines, and fees, arguing that he was denied due process by the imposition of these costs without consideration of his ability to pay. The trial court summarily denied the motion on a number of grounds, including that it lacked jurisdiction because the judgment in Hill’s case was final.

1 Further undesignated code references are to the Penal Code.

1

Hill now appeals the denial of his motion to vacate only as to the $100 probation investigation fee. He argues that the request to vacate this fee should have been granted pursuant to section 1465.9, subdivision (a), which provides that any unpaid balance of costs imposed under section 1203.1(b) “shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” We agree and reverse. BACKGROUND A. Conviction and Sentencing In 2008, Hill was convicted of first degree murder (§ 187, subd. (a)) and sentenced to life in prison without parole, plus a consecutive 10-year term for a firearm use enhancement (§ 12022.53, subd. (b)), and a one-year term for an arming enhancement (§ 12022, subd. (a)(1)). Hill was ordered to pay a $10,000 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, sub.(b)); $7,500 in victim restitution; a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8); and a $100 probation investigation fee (§ 1203.1, subd. (b)). Hill appealed. We stayed the one-year term imposed pursuant to section 12022, subdivision (a)(1), and affirmed the conviction. (People v. Hill, supra, A124123 & A124244.) B. Section 1465.9 In 2020, the Legislature passed Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1869). Assembly Bill 1869 recognized that court- ordered fines and fees are “often assigned to people who simply cannot afford to pay them,” and “make poor people, their families, and their communities poorer.” (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 2.) Its stated intent was “to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of administrative fees.” (Ibid.)