The Court of Appeal remanded for the trial court to consider resentencing under Penal Code section 654 in light of Assembly Bill 518, and to strike the fees imposed for preparation of appellant’s probation report and booking pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.9.

In light of Assembly Bill No. 1869, which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court directed the trial court to vacate the fee for probation’s presentence report (Pen. Code, § 1203.1(b)). The Court further held that remand was necessary in light of recent amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) to Penal Code section 1170, which limits the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and creates a presumption in favor of the low term where the defendant experienced psychological, physical, or childhood trauma and those factors contributed to the commission of the offense.

In light of Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court of Appeal vacated the probation report fee (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b). The Court further held that the trial court erred by failing to calculate appellant’s custody credits prior to resentencing him.

In accordance with Penal Code section 1202.45, subdivision (a), which requires a sentencing court to assess a parole revocation fine “[i]n every case where a person is convicted of a crime and his or her sentence includes a period of parole,” the Court of Appeal struck the imposition of a parole revocation fine because appellant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole.

In light of Assembly Bill No. 177, which eliminated a range of administrative fees agencies and courts were authorized to impose and any outstanding debt incurred as a result of such fees, the Court of Appeal vacated the 10 percent collection fee to cover the administrative cots of collecting the restitution fine.

In light of Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019–2020 Reg. Sess.), which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court of Appeal vacated the probation investigation fee.

The Court of Appeal remanded for resentencing in light of two amendments (Senate Bill No. 567 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 124 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.)) to Penal Code section 1170, which limited the court’s ability to impose a sentence exceeding the middle term and created a presumption in favor of the low term where specified circumstances were “contributing factor[s] in the commission of the offense.” Upon remand, the Court further found it was appropriate for the trial court to reconsider its decision on fines and fees as well.

The Court of Appeal held that, because the federal and California constitutions oblige a court to consider ability to pay in determining whether a fine is excessive under the Eighth Amendment or deprives a defendant of due process as explained in People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, the trial court abused its discretion by denying appellant’s request for an ability to pay hearing before imposing a $5,000 restitution fine. The Court further found that the error was not harmless where appellant was deprived of the opportunity to present evidence on ability to pay, had significant debt, was 61 years old when convicted, had COVID-19 on three occasion, and continued to experience lingering symptoms of COVID-19 as of the sentencing hearing.  

In light of Assembly Bill No. 177, which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court of Appeal vacated the trial court’s imposition of interest pursuant to former Penal Code section 1203.1, subdivision (l) and collection cost fees pursuant to former Penal Code section 1214.5.

In light of Assembly Bill No. 1869, which eliminated certain fees in criminal cases and rendered the unpaid balance of any such fees unenforceable and uncollectible, the Court of Appeal vacated the criminal justice administrative fee (former Government Code, § 29550, subd. (c)).   

^