California Court of Appeals, Second District, Sixth Division
IN RE M.B., a Person Coming Under the Juvenile Court Law.
M.B., Defendant and Appellant. The People, Plaintiff and Respondent,
Cal.Rptr.3d 499] Superior Court County of Los Angeles, J.
Christopher Smith, Judge (Super. Ct. No. YJ39017).
Bernstein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal for
Defendant and Appellant.
Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Steven E. Mercer, Acting Supervising Deputy
Attorney General, Esther P. Kim, Deputy Attorney General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent
Acting P. J.
"Dueñas " apply to a mandatory
minimum juvenile restitution fine? (
People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157,
242 Cal.Rptr.3d 268 (Dueñas ).) No. This
celebrated or denigrated case has its followers and
detractors at the Court of Appeal. (See, e.g., People v.
Belloso (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 647, 255 Cal.Rptr.3d 640.)
Here, Dueñas attempts to rear its head in juvenile
jurisprudence. As we shall explain, even if this case is
"good law," it does not apply to a mandatory
minimum juvenile restitution fine.
appeals a disposition order entered after the juvenile court
sustained five petitions [257 Cal.Rptr.3d 500] (Welf. & Inst.
Code, § 602) for, inter alia, first degree
residential burglary. (Pen. Code, § 459.) The trial court
declared appellant a ward of the court, placed him in a camp
community program, and ordered him to pay the mandatory
minimum $100 restitution fine. (§ 730.6, subd. (b)(1).)
Appellant claims that ordering him to pay the $100
restitution fine violates his due process rights because the
trial court did not determine whether he had the financial
ability to pay such a fine.
not agree. Appellant was ordered to pay the mandatory minimum
restitution fine allowable under section 730.6, subdivision
(b)(1). The statute provides that in imposing a section 730.6
fine, the trial court "shall consider any relevant
factors including, but not limited to, the minors ability to
pay ...." (§ 730.6, subd. (d)(1).) It further provides
that "[t]he consideration of minors ability to pay may
include his ... future earning capacity" and "[the]
minor shall bear the burden of demonstrating a lack of his
... ability to pay." (Id., subd. (d)(2); see
also § 730.7, subd. (a) [future earning capacity of minors
parent or guardian may also be considered].) The presumption
is, and we believe, that the juvenile court followed these
involved a mandatory adult restitution fine (Pen. Code, §
1202.4) and assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373; Pen. Code, §
1465.8) in an adult criminal matter. (Dueñas,
supra, 30 Cal.App.5th at pp. 1161-1162, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d
268.) After Dueñas was convicted of driving with a
suspended license and granted probation, she requested a
hearing on her ability to pay the fine and assessments. The
trial court determined that the fine and assessments were
mandatory and rejected defendants constitutional arguments.
(Id. at p. 1163, 242 Cal.Rptr.3d 268.) The Court of
Appeal reversed, concluding that due process requires that a
trial court "conduct an ability to pay hearing and
ascertain a defendants present ability to pay" before
it imposes assessments under Penal Code section 1465.8 or
Government Code section 70373. (D ...