People v. Gonzalez CA3

DISCUSSION

Relying on Dueñas, defendant argues the trial court violated her right to due process and equal protection under the United States and California Constitutions by imposing a restitution fine and additional fees without considering her ability to pay. She also asserts the restitution fine and additional fees violated the ban on excessive fines under the United States and California Constitutions. Alternatively, if she forfeited either issue by failing to object at sentencing, she contends reversal is required based on ineffective assistance of counsel. The People assert forfeiture because Dueñas was decided nearly 21 months prior to defendant’s sentencing. Defendant forfeited her challenge to the fines, fees, and assessment because the resentencing hearing was held after Dueñas was decided; there was thus authority for requesting an ability-to-pay hearing at the time of the resentencing hearing, and defendant failed to do so. (Cf. People v. Castellano (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 485, 489.) To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, “the defendant must first show counsel’s performance was deficient, in that it fell below an objective standard of reasonableness under…