People v. Stephens CA5

DISCUSSION

A. Proposition 64 and Section 4573.6 Until recently, California Courts of Appeal were split on the issue of whether possession of less than 28.5 grams of marijuana in prison remained a crime after Proposition 64 became effective. Our Supreme Court resolved that issue. “[P]ossession of cannabis in prison remains a violation of … section 4573.6.” (People v. Raybon (2021) 11 Cal.5th 1056, 1060.) We are bound by our Supreme Court’s holding. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455.) Defendant’s conviction for possession of marijuana in prison must therefore be affirmed. B. Restitution and Fines Defendant contends the court improperly imposed the fines and fees without conducting a hearing on his ability to pay those amounts based on Dueñas, that held “due process of law requires the trial court to conduct an ability to pay hearing and ascertain a defendant’s present ability to pay” before it imposes any fines or fees. (People v. Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1164, 1167.)2 The People respond that defendant forfeited his claim by failing to raise it at sentencing. In turn, defendant contends that, to the extent his claim was forfeited, his…