People v. Hall CA3

Filed 10/21/22 P. v. Hall CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (San Joaquin) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095477

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. STKCRFER20210003576) v.

ALICE MARIE HALL,

Defendant and Appellant.

Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), defendant Alice Marie Hall appeals the imposition of assessments and fines without an ability to pay hearing. Recognizing her trial counsel did not object to these assessments and fines, defendant further contends she received ineffective assistance of counsel. The principles of due process do not require a determination of a defendant’s present ability to pay before the imposition of the fines and assessments at issue in Dueñas and in this proceeding. Thus, we reject her argument and, with that, we necessarily reject her ineffective assistance of counsel claim. We strike the unpaid balance of the 10 percent collection “[s]urcharge” fee no longer enforceable and otherwise affirm the judgment.

1

FACTS AND HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS On October 16, 2020, defendant stole a vehicle valued more than $950. Defendant was charged with grand theft (Pen. Code, § 487, subd. (a); statutory section citations that follow are found in the Penal Code unless otherwise stated), uttering a fictitious check (§ 476), unlawful driving or taking a vehicle (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a)), and receiving stolen property (§ 496d, subd. (a)). On October 4, 2021, defendant pleaded no contest to unlawfully taking a vehicle. The remaining counts were dismissed. That same day, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on two years of informal probation with 120 days in jail. The trial court also stated, “the fine is $400,” in addition to “a $300 probation revocation fine, which is stayed.” The minute order for the hearing showed the $400 fine was comprised of a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.40), a $40 security fee (§ 1465.8), a $30 convictions assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373), and a $30 “[s]urcharge” (§ 1202.4, subd. (l)). The trial court asked defendant whether she could pay the $400 fine within two months or if she needed payments. Defendant responded, “I can pay that as soon as I get out.” Defendant timely appealed. Defendant’s appellate counsel filed a request with the trial court to stay the fines and fees, which the trial court denied on June 14, 2022.