Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Aguilar

Supreme Court of California

January 12, 2015

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
OCTAVIO AGUILAR, Defendant and Appellant

Page 863

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 864

Superior Court of Contra Costa County, No. 51202696, Thomas M. Maddock, Judge. Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Four No. A135516.

Kieran D. C. Manjarrez, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Laurence K. Sullivan and Catherine A. Rivlin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Opinion by Werdergar J., with Cantil-Sakauye, C. J., with Chin, Corrigan, Liu, JJ., Baxter, J.,[*] and Franson, J.,[] concurring.

OPINION

[340 P.3d 367] [182 Cal.Rptr.3d 139] WERDEGAR, J.--

As in the companion case of People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850 [182 Cal.Rptr.3d 143, 340 P.3d 371] ( Trujillo ), we consider whether the appellate forfeiture rule applies to challenges to fees imposed at sentencing, here, probation-related costs and an order for reimbursement [340 P.3d 368] of the fees paid to appointed trial counsel under sections 1203.1b and 987.8 of the Penal Code, respectively. [1] We hold that defendant's failure to challenge the fees in the trial court precludes him from doing so on appeal.

Factual and Procedural Background

A jury convicted defendant of one count of corporal injury on a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a)) and, in a bifurcated proceeding, the court found he had

Page 865

suffered a prior conviction of battery within seven years (§ 243; former § 273.5, subd. (e), now subd. (f)). At the sentencing hearing, the court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on formal probation for three years on various conditions. Without objection, the court also imposed various fines and fees as recommended in the presentence investigation report, including a fee of $ 176 for the report; the cost, " not to exceed $ 75/month," of probation supervision (§ 1203.1b); and a " criminal [administration] assessment" fee (which is generally known, and hereafter referred to, as a booking fee; see, e.g., People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 590 [155 Cal.Rptr.3d 365, 298 P.3d 860]), of $ 564 (see Gov. Code, § § 29550, 29550.1). [2] The court also ordered defendant to pay attorney fees in the amount of $ 500. (§ 987.8, subd. (b).) The court noted: " Many of these fees are going to be based on his ability to pay. When he contacts the probation office, he'll fill out fiscal financial assessment form [ sic ] and he can talk with the probation deputy about his ability to pay these various fees." The record does not disclose whether defendant subsequently appeared before the probation officer to contest his ability to pay the fees.

On appeal, defendant contended the court imposed these fees without making a finding of his ability to pay (and, in the case of the booking fee, without evidence in the record of the actual costs of the governmental services to be reimbursed through such fees) as required by People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1400-1401 [115 Cal.Rptr.3d 220], disapproved on other grounds in People v. McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th 589, and further disapproved in Trujillo, supra, 60 Cal.4th at page 858, footnote 5. Defendant also contended he was not advised of and did not waive his right to a court ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.