People v. Rojas CA3

Filed 10/31/22 P. v. Rojas CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 (Tehama) ----

THE PEOPLE, C095042

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 20CR002739)

v.

KAREN MARIE ROJAS,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Karen Marie Rojas pleaded guilty to vehicular manslaughter. On appeal, she relies on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 to contend the trial court’s order imposing various fees, fines, and assessments lacked substantial evidence and violated her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and to be free from excessive fines. We conclude defendant forfeited her Dueñas claim by failing to raise an ability to pay objection at the sentencing hearing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment.

1

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On October 30, 2017, defendant drove her car the wrong direction on a freeway and crashed into another car; the driver of the other car later died from injuries sustained in the crash. Defendant pleaded guilty to gross vehicular manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (c)(1).)1 On October 7, 2021, the trial court placed defendant on two years’ probation with 365 days in jail. The court also imposed a $600 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $600 stayed probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44), a $40 court operations assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). Defendant timely appealed; the case was fully briefed on August 29, 2022, and assigned to this panel on September 5, 2022. The parties waived argument and the case was deemed submitted on October 28, 2022. On February 28, 2022, while this appeal was pending, defendant’s appellate counsel filed a request under section 1237.2 to stay the fines and fees imposed pending an ability to pay hearing. After holding a hearing, the trial court declined to stay or alter the fines and fees. DISCUSSION Defendant challenges the imposition of the fines and fees. First, she argues “it is fundamentally unfair to impose the Government Code section 70373 and Penal Code section 1465.8 assessments where substantial evidence does not support that appellant has the ability to pay.” Second, she argues imposition of the section 1202.4 fine violated her rights to due process and equal protection as well as the Eighth Amendment prohibition against excessive fines. We find defendant forfeited her Dueñas claim by failing to raise it at any point during the sentencing hearing.