Frye

People v. Frye

Good Law
1994 Cal. App. LEXIS 27·21 Cal. App. 4th 1483·27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 52·94 Daily Journal DAR 681·94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 418
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJanuary 19, 1994C015620California1,305 words

Opinion

Opinion

Sims, J.

As amended in 1992, Government Code section 13967, subdivision (a) (hereafter § 13967(a)), provides in relevant part: “[I]f the person is convicted of one or more felony offenses, the court shall impose a . . . restitution fine of not less than two hundred dollars ($200), subject to the defendant’s ability to pay . . . .” (Italics added.)

Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (a) (hereafter § 1202.4(a)) provides in relevant part: “In any case in which a defendant is convicted of a felony, the court shall order the defendant to pay a restitution fine as provided in subdivision (a) of Section 13967 of the Government Code. Such restitution fine . . . shall be ordered regardless of the defendant’s present ability to pay.”

In this case we are called upon to harmonize these two statutes. We shall conclude that, in imposing a restitution fine, the trial court must consider a defendant’s ability to pay. However, the trial court is not limited to a consideration of a defendant’s present ability to pay but may consider defendant’s ability to pay in the future.

Defendant Robert Frye was serving a life sentence in state prison when he was found in possession of…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.