People v. Sousa CA5

DISCUSSION

The parties agree that defendant received an ability-to-pay hearing on the fines and fees originally imposed (and then reduced) by the trial court, but defendant contends he was entitled to a more comprehensive hearing pursuant to Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, to determine whether he has the ability to pay even the statutory minimum fines and fees that the court ultimately imposed. Defendant claims that the minimum fines and fees violate his constitutional rights, and if he has forfeited these claims, his defense counsel was ineffective for failing to object. We conclude defendant has forfeited the claims and has not shown ineffective assistance of counsel. In Dueñas, the defendant was a probationer who suffered from cerebral palsy, and was an indigent and homeless mother of young children. She requested and received a full hearing on her ability to pay the court facilities fee, court operations fee, and the statutorily required minimum restitution fine. Despite the defendant’s clear inability to pay these fines and fees, the trial court imposed them as required. (Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1160, 1162–1163.) 3 On appeal, the Dueñas court held that the…