Filed 10/28/21 (unmodified opn. attached)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SALISA CHEYENNE GREELEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H047281

 (Santa Clara County

 Super. Ct. No. C1896747)

 ORDER MODIFYING OPINION

 [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT]

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 19, 2021 be modified as 

follows:

On page 20, first full paragraph, replace “court operations fee” with “criminal 

justice administration fee” so that the disposition reads as follows:

The probation order is reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to amend 

the probation order to vacate the portion of the criminal justice administration fee and the 

probation supervision fee that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021, and to reduce the term 

of probation to two years.

There is no change in judgment.

Dated:_______________________ _____________________________

ELIA, ACTING P.J.

____________________________ _____________________________

GROVER, J. DANNER, J.
Trial Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

Superior Court No: C1896747

Trial Judge: Honorable Kenneth Paul Barnum

Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent:

THE PEOPLE

Xavier Becerra

Attorney General

Matthew Rodriguez

Acting Attorney General

Lance E. Winters

Chief Assistant Attorney General

Jeffrey M. Laurence

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Seth K. Schalit

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Lisa H. Ashley-Ott

Deputy Attorney General

Counsel for Defendant and Appellant:

SALISA CHEYENNE GREELEY

Paul R. Kraus

By appointment of the Sixth District 

Appellate Program
Filed 10/19/21 (unmodified opinion)

CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

SALISA CHEYENNE GREELEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H047281

 (Santa Clara County

 Super. Ct. No. C1896747)

Defendant Salisa Cheyenne Greeley was convicted by jury trial of first degree 

burglary (Pen. Code, § 460, subd. (a)).1

 The trial court suspended imposition of sentence, 

placed defendant on probation for three years, and imposed various fines and fees, and 

restitution. On appeal, defendant argues: (1) several instances of prosecutorial 

misconduct, individually and collectively, warrant reversal; (2) the trial court 

prejudicially erred by giving CALCRIM No. 315 [Eyewitness Identification]; (3) these 

errors cumulatively violated her due process rights; (4) the imposition of court 

assessments and a restitution fine without an ability-to-pay hearing violated her 

constitutional rights; (5) the three-year term of probation is now unauthorized; and (6) the 

court should strike the criminal justice administration fee and the probation supervision

fee. We reject defendant’s first four claims, but agree that the term of probation should 

be reduced to two years and that the unpaid portions of the criminal justice administration 

and probation supervision fees should be stricken. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment 

and remand with instructions.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.
2

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Prosecution’s Case

Just before midnight on July 26, 2018, Karl Day looked out his second floor 

apartment window and observed two men and a woman “acting suspiciously.” Day 

observed one of the men looking through the window of another apartment, while the 

other man and woman acted as lookouts. Day thought that the woman “look[ed] Asian.” 

Eventually, Day saw one of the men pushing against the window. After Day heard the 

window break, he called 911. One of the men then climbed into the apartment. After 

police responded, Day told an officer that he “would not be able to recognize the suspects 

if [he] saw them again” based on “[e]nvironmental factors,” meaning “the short amount 

of time” that he saw them, “the lighting,” and “the distance” involved.

Officer Hymel Dunn responded to Day’s 911 call within minutes. As he arrived 

on the scene, his headlights illuminated a woman, who Dunn later identified as defendant,

lying in a prone position underneath a truck, with a large bag within arm’s reach. The 

location was about 75 to 100 yards from the apartment. Dunn ordered defendant to come 

out from the under the truck and arrested her. The bag contained items that had been

taken from the apartment.

At trial, Day identified defendant in court as looking like the woman he saw 

standing lookout. He admitted, however, that at the preliminary hearing, he had stated he 

“ ‘couldn’t be a hundred percent positive ’ ” that defendant was the person he had seen 

act as lookout. He testified at trial that the reason for his uncertainty at the preliminary 

hearing was because he “noticed [at the preliminary hearing] that [defendant] was not 

Asian,” but rather “maybe Hispanic descent.” He admitted that the revelation gave him 

pause, but reiterated that he was now “a hundred percent certain” that defendant, who he 

“originally thought was Asian,” was the same woman he saw from his window.

On July 28, 2018, defendant made a recorded phone call from jail to a person 

named Jasmine. Excerpts from the call were played for the jury. Defendant told Jasmine 
3

that she could have avoided arrest, but she got scared: “But you know, like we’re not 

thinking, I’m not thinking, and I’m the one that fuckin’ gets in trouble, like fuck. You 

know like out of all people, I’m the one that fuckin’ gets in trouble again. Like you know 

how stupid I feel, fool, I coulda got away, but I got scared, like I feel like a bitch. Like I 

shoulda never fuckin’ hid under that fuckin’ car. What the fuck was I—” Defendant also 

explained that “we got snitched on,” meaning “[s]omebody called saying that there was, 

there was 3 boys or something like that. They thought I was a boy.” Defendant 

continued: “But I don’t know, I don’t know how serious this shit is, ’cause this shit could 

be hella serious, nigga, and they could be using these phone calls against me, like that’s 

how serious it could be.” Defendant concluded: “I don’t give a fuck, ’cause I’m the only 

one in trouble. Fuck, I’m only get myself in more trouble.”

B. The Defense Case

Dr. Kathy Pezdek testified as an expert on eyewitness memory identification. She 

explained the three-stage process of memory as it relates to reliability: (1) perception or 

observation; (2) storage; and (3) identification and testing. The first stage relates to 

“[h]ow clearly did the eyewitness see a particular perpetrator to begin with.” The second 

stage involves “the ability to hold on to that information over time.” The third stage 

involves looking at under what conditions an eyewitness made an identification. 

Dr. Pezdek also elaborated on nine factors that she thought should be considered in 

evaluating the reliability of eyewitness memory: lighting; distance; exposure time; 

presence of distractions; presence of disguise; the cross-racial effect; the passage of time 

between observation and identification; the possibility of clothing bias; and the testing of 

eyewitness memory.

Dr. Pezdek was asked a hypothetical that mirrored the circumstances of Day’s 

identification of defendant. Dr. Pezdek opined that the hypothetical was “a textbook 

example of suggestibility and it would be ridiculous if that sequence ever actually got 

played out in a real case.” She explained that “[w]hat matters is what an eyewitness 
4

expressed as a level of certainty or confidence at their first opportunity to make an 

identification,” and that subsequent expressions of confidence are less likely to reflect an 

accurate identification.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Prosecutorial Misconduct

Defendant argues that the prosecutor engaged in reversible misconduct during her 

direct examination of Officer Raymond McNair and during her cross-examination of 

Dr. Pezdek.

1. Officer McNair

a. Background

Defendant moved in limine to exclude “evidence of any prior convictions, bad 

acts, arrests, and/or law enforcement contacts of [defendant].” The trial court denied that 

motion. Defendant also moved to exclude references to “Case No. C1770443,” which 

was a “case where [defendant was] convicted of . . . two felonies and one 

misdemeanor . . . .” The court granted that motion.

Finally, defendant also moved to exclude statements she made to officers

immediately following her arrest about her prior police contacts. The trial court granted 

the request with modifications. At the in limine hearing, defense counsel clarified that 

this request to exclude “is to the content within this five-page document, specifically 

when the officers—” The court then interjected: “[Defendant]’s statements recorded on 

a body camera. The officers tell each other [defendant] had been previously arrested, she 

has been previously to jail in Santa Clara County, and [defendant] answers affirmatively. 

[¶] So you’re saying this encounter with the police officers with these specific questions 

is more prejudicial than probative?” Defense counsel answered, “Yes.” The prosecutor 

indicated that she did not intend to put those statements into evidence, and the court then 

ruled that those statements “will be redacted.” The parties then discussed the entirety of 

the body camera footage, and court ultimately decided that “anything that is post 
5

Miranda, I’m going to grant” the motion to exclude. The court later elaborated: “From 

where the officers talked to [defendant], and from where the officers ask, ‘Have you 

previously been to jail?’ to her giving them her [personal file number], that’s excised.” 

The court explained that “[a]ll these statements are irrelevant, all these statements are 

highly prejudicial . . . .”

On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Officer McNair, who was present 

when Dunn arrested defendant, whether he was “able to determine [defendant’s] race and 

ethnicity” when he first contacted her. McNair stated, “Not entirely.” Defense counsel 

then asked if McNair had prepared a police report. McNair responded, “Yes.” Defense 

counsel asked if he recalled defendant’s “race or ethnicity being Hispanic?” McNair 

responded, “No.” Defense counsel asked Officer McNair to refresh his recollection by 

reviewing part of the police report. After doing so, Officer McNair testified that the 

arrest report listed defendant’s “race or ethnicity” as “Hispanic.”

On redirect examination, the prosecutor asked if that type of “biographical 

information, is that something you get from the person that you arrest, in this case, the 

defendant self-reporting?” McNair replied, “That’s one of the places we can get that.” 

The prosecutor continued: “In this case, did you confirm defendant’s race or ethnicity as 

Hispanic through any additional tests or additional ways?” McNair explained: “When 

you run a party out over the radio, your computer will come back, the various hits on 

various databases they’re run through. DMV being one of them, CJIC being the other, 

which is the information system used by the corrections system in our county. And there 

was a CJIC hit on her name.” Defense counsel interjected, “Your honor, I’m going to 

object to this answer based on—could we approach?” The court replied, “No.” The 

prosecutor then offered to “rephrase it and cut to the chase,” and proceeded to ask, 

“[w]ere you able to independently with just your own two eyes identify defendant as 

Hispanic or something else?” McNair replied, “No.” The prosecutor continued, “You 
6

had to either rely on information provided by her or some other information; is that fair?” 

Concluding his testimony, McNair said, “Yes.”

Later, defense counsel argued that “it was highly improper” that McNair 

“commented about [defendant’s] prior criminal history.” Defense counsel asserted that it 

was “a violation of the court’s order,” and he “wonder[ed] if the [prosecutor] even 

admonished this witness not to talk about prior police contacts . . . .” The prosecutor 

responded that she had “absolutely admonished all the officers about [the] court’s ruling 

in regards to . . . no mention of juvenile history, and no mention of criminal history in 

general. [¶] I did let the officers know that.” The prosecutor explained that she had 

wanted McNair to testify whether it had been clear to him that defendant was Hispanic 

just by looking at her, and she had not anticipated that McNair would respond that he had 

found the information on CJIC.

The trial court ultimately decided to give the jury a curative instruction as to 

McNair’s testimony: “Yesterday, Officer McNair testified about [defendant] and her 

connection with a database named or called CJIC. The court struck that testimony. The 

jury is instructed not to consider that portion of Officer McNair’s testimony for any 

purpose whatsoever. Thank you.”

b. Analysis

Defendant argues that McNair’s testimony—that he confirmed her race or 

ethnicity using CJIC—violated the court’s in limine order to “exclude” defendant’s 

statements to police “ ‘regarding prior police contacts because they are not relevant and 

highly prejudicial under Evidence Code section 352.’ ”

“It is misconduct for a prosecutor to violate a court ruling by eliciting or 

attempting to elicit inadmissible evidence in violation of a court order.” (People v. Crew

(2003) 31 Cal.4th 822, 839.) “A defendant’s conviction will not be reversed for 

prosecutorial misconduct, however, unless it is reasonably probable that a result more 

favorable to the defendant would have been reached without the misconduct.” (Ibid.)
7

Here, the prosecutor’s conduct did not amount to misconduct because she did not 

elicit, nor attempt to elicit, evidence in violation of the court’s in limine order. Rather, 

the prosecutor’s questions were directed at Officer McNair’s perception of defendant’s 

race or ethnicity. The prosecutor’s questions, and Officer McNair’s response about the 

CJIC database, did not implicate any of the trial court’s in limine orders. While the trial 

court granted defendant’s motion to exclude statements made to police at the time of 

arrest, the prosecutor’s question and Officer McNair’s answer did not involve defendant’s 

statements to police. Nor did the prosecutor’s questioning amount to an attempt to elicit 

testimony about defendant’s statements regarding her prior arrests to police officers. The 

line of questioning centered on how McNair determined that defendant was Hispanic, as 

indicated on the arrest report. It did not seek, explicitly or by implication, to delve into 

defendant’s statements about her prior police contacts.

In addition, even assuming the conduct amounted to misconduct, it is not 

reasonably probable that a result more favorable to defendant would have been reached in 

the absence of the prosecutor eliciting the challenged statements. “[W]e presume jurors 

are able to and do follow the court’s limiting instructions.” (People v. Williams (2000) 

79 Cal.App.4th 1157, 1171.) Here, the jurors were instructed to “not . . . consider that 

portion of Officer McNair’s testimony for any purpose whatsoever.” Accordingly, we 

presume that jurors ignored the challenged testimony. Thus, assuming misconduct, it 

was harmless under the applicable standard.

2. Dr. Pezdek

a. Background

The prosecutor moved in limine to limit the testimony of Dr. Pezdek. The 

prosecutor sought to exclude any testimony as to whether a witness made an accurate or 

inaccurate identification. The court granted the motion. During the in limine hearing, the 

parties discussed the scope of Dr. Pezdek’s testimony and agreed that she would not be 

permitted to testify as to the reliability of another witness’s identification. Defense 
8

counsel stated that “Dr. Pezdek . . . can[not] comment on the credibility of another 

witness. [She] can only speak to facts in evidence . . . .” The prosecutor agreed that “her 

function is to educate the jury on different sorts of things that affect perception and 

ability to identify.”

Defendant also moved to compel production of impeachment evidence, 

specifically, “any material to be used for impeachment against [defendant], if [s]he were 

to testify.” The trial court granted the motion. At the in limine hearing, the topic of 

impeachment evidence was discussed in relation to Dr. Pezdek’s anticipated testimony. 

The prosecutor indicated that she had “some transcripts from [Dr. Pezdek’s] prior 

testimony,” and if Dr. Pezdek testified inconsistently, she intended to “impeach her 

[with] those.” The court asked the prosecutor, “have you discovered those transcripts to 

[defense counsel]?” The prosecutor said, “I have not.” The court asked the prosecutor if 

she could do so today. The prosecutor stated that she had not finished reviewing the 

transcripts, and also that she felt she had no duty to give the transcripts to the defense. 

The court agreed with the prosecutor. The court also agreed with defense counsel that the 

prosecutor “would need to provide [defense counsel] a copy of that impeachment 

material at the time [the prosecutor] intends to impeach her.”

During cross-examination, the prosecutor engaged in a line of questioning about 

Dr. Pezdek’s testimony in other cases. The prosecutor then asked “[w]hen was the last 

time you testified in a criminal case prior to coming to court today?” Dr. Pezdek said 

“three times in the last month.” The prosecutor continued: “Two weeks ago, 

approximately, you testified in another burglary case in Santa Clara County; is that 

right?” Dr. Pezdek answered, “Yes.” The prosecutor then asked, “And it was a different 

defense attorney . . . not [defense counsel in this case]?” Dr. Pezdek replied, “Right.” 

The prosecutor continued: “Would it surprise you to learn that the 12 jurors—,” which 

prompted defense counsel to interrupt, “Objection. Improper.” The court sustained the 

objection, and the prosecutor said, “I’ll move on.”
9

The prosecutor asked about the number of cases in which Dr. Pezdek had testified. 

The prosecutor noted that in 2010, Dr. Pezdek claimed to have testified “as an expert in 

excess of 300 times . . . .” Dr. Pezdek said, “That would sound likely.” Defense counsel 

asked if she and the prosecutor could approach the bench, the trial court agreed, and an 

unreported discussion ensued. Questioning resumed, and the prosecutor asked, “Do you 

remember testifying in a case of People versus Cartlige and Duffy?” Defense counsel 

said, “Same objection. I have not received a copy.” The court said, “I thought you were 

giving it to her.” The prosecutor replied, “I am.” Defense counsel was then given the 

document to inspect. The prosecutor asked again about the case, but Dr. Pezdek replied 

that she did not remember. The prosecutor offered to let Dr. Pezdek read the transcript to 

refresh her memory. The transcript was marked as exhibit 11, and given to Dr. Pezdek. 

The prosecutor then noted that Dr. Pezdek had claimed in her testimony today that she 

testified “give or take 18 times a year in the last ten years,” in 2010 had claimed to have 

been an expert “ ‘in excess of 300 times,’ ” but in her testimony today had said she had 

testified as an expert “more than 350” times. The prosecutor then asked Dr. Pezdek to 

explain the discrepancy. Dr. Pezdek admitted that the number she provided today was 

“an estimate,” and “[i]t would be more than that.”

Later, out of the jury’s presence, defense counsel raised concerns about the 

prosecutor’s conduct with respect to the impeachment evidence. Defense counsel noted 

“it was only after I made a second objection that the court re-ordered [the prosecutor] to 

give me that document.” The court asked defense counsel, “Have you had [an] adequate 

chance to review [it]?” Defense counsel stated, “Well, I don’t have a copy of it right 

now.” The court stated, “She gave it to you.” Defense counsel responded, “She showed 

it to me and took it back.” The court then noted, “The order was to give.” The 

prosecutor explained that she understood the court’s order to require her to show defense 

counsel a copy, which she did during the cross-examination. The court ordered the 

prosecutor to provide defense counsel with her own copy of the document.
10

Finally, at various points during the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Dr. Pezdek, 

the prosecutor asked questions tending to highlight the fact that Dr. Pezdek was not 

opining as to the accuracy of Day’s identification of defendant. In one instance, the 

prosecutor asked if Dr. Pezdek was aware of “any conditions in the area” that might 

affect the accuracy of an identification. Dr. Pezdek responded, “I can’t—I’m not 

permitted to comment on anyway, that but no.” The prosecutor also asked if Dr. Pezdek 

had gone to the scene, and she responded, “No” and “I can’t comment on that.” The 

prosecutor continued to point out in other instances that Dr. Pezdek was only speaking 

about the accuracy of eyewitness memory in general, and not specifically about the 

accuracy of the identification made in this case.

b. Analysis

Defendant first argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by crossexamining Dr. Pezdek as to a case in which she had previously given expert testimony. 

Defendant points to the prosecutor’s question to Dr. Pezdek about having testified 

recently in another case, and the follow-up question, “Would it surprise you to learn that 

the 12 jurors–”

“It constitutes misconduct to examine a witness solely for the purpose of implying 

the truth of facts stated in the question rather than in the answer to be given, and a 

prosecutor should not pursue a line of questioning that is damaging but irrelevant.” 

(People v. Dykes (2009) 46 Cal.4th 731, 766.) Here, it is a close question whether the 

prosecutor engaged in misconduct. The prosecutor arguably appeared to be attempting to 

suggest that 12 jurors had recently rejected Dr. Pezdek’s testimony for the defense in 

another case. It is difficult to be certain, however, because the question was cut off 

before it was completed. If that was the purpose of the question, it was misconduct, 

because it was irrelevant but intended to be damaging to Dr. Pezdek’s credibility.

However, we need not determine whether it was misconduct. Assuming it was, 

the prosecutor’s question was harmless. In this case, defense counsel’s objection was 
11

sustained before the prosecutor even finished the question or Dr. Pezdek responded. As 

such, the jury only heard an incomplete question by the prosecutor. The potentially

damaging assertion was never made. Further, the jury was given CALCRIM No. 222 

[Evidence], which provides that “[n]othing that the attorneys say is evidence” and “[t]heir 

questions are not evidence.” Thus, the jury was specifically instructed that the 

prosecutor’s questions were not evidence and were “significant only if they helped you to 

understand the witnesses’ answers.” As we have discussed, we must assume that the jury 

followed the instruction and thus ignored the prosecutor’s question. (People v. Bryant,

Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 447.)

Defendant next points to the prosecutor’s questions about Dr. Pezdek’s inability to 

opine on the accuracy of the identification in this case. He argues that “[i]t cumulatively 

if not in any individual case violates the court’s in limine orders admitting and limiting 

Dr. Pezdek’s testimony.” Not so. None of the questions asked Dr. Pezdek to comment 

on the accuracy of Day’s identification, and none of the questions sought to expand her 

testimony beyond the permitted limits. Rather, the questioning highlighted that Dr. 

Pezdek was speaking only generally about the accuracy of eyewitness identification. In 

other words, the line of questioning only made clear the limits of Dr. Pezdek’s testimony; 

it did not seek to expand her testimony beyond those limits.

Finally, defendant argues that the prosecutor committed misconduct by not 

providing defense counsel a copy of the document she used in her cross-examination of 

Dr. Pezdek until after Dr. Pezdek had completed her testimony. Defendant contends that 

the failure to do so violated the trial court’s in limine orders. Here, there was no such 

violation. While the court granted defendant’s motion for the production of impeachment 

evidence, it did so for such evidence as it related to defendant, not defendant’s witnesses. 

Further, while there was an understanding reached at the in limine hearing that the 

prosecutor “would need to provide [defense counsel] a copy of [any] impeachment 

material [of Dr. Pezdek] at the time she intends to impeach her,” the record reflects that 
12

defense counsel was provided a copy of the impeachment document to inspect. Although 

there was apparently some confusion as to whether the court’s order required the 

prosecutor to provide defense counsel with her own copy to keep, the issue was remedied 

the same day, and defense counsel was provided with a copy to keep.2

 We discern no 

error, let alone reversible error.

B. CALCRIM No. 315

Defendant argues that it was reversible error to give CALCRIM No. 315. She 

points to the portion of the instruction that asks the jury to evaluate the identification 

testimony by considering, among other factors, “How certain was the witness when he or 

she made the identification?” (Italics omitted.) She contends that this “portion of th[e]

instruction was error because it reinforces a common misconception that the certainty of 

an eyewitness identification correlates positively with its accuracy.” Thus, defendant 

contends the instruction violated her due process rights.

In People v. Sánchez (2016) 63 Cal.4th 411 (Sánchez), the defendant claimed the 

trial court erred when it instructed jurors pursuant to CALJIC No. 2.92 that they should 

consider “ ‘the extent to which the witness is either certain or uncertain of the 

identification’ ” because the language was at odds with “scientific studies that conclude 

there is, at best, a weak correlation between witness certainty and accuracy.” (Sánchez, 

supra, at p. 461, fn. omitted.) The California Supreme Court determined the defendant’s 

claim had been forfeited by his failure to request modification of the instruction in the 

trial court. (Id. at pp. 461-462; see also People v. Ward (2005) 36 Cal.4th 186, 213

[finding no sua sponte duty to modify CALJIC No. 2.92].) The Sánchez court also 

2 Allowing defense counsel to inspect the document was also consistent with the 

Evidence Code, which requires, “[i]f a writing is shown to a witness, all parties . . . must 

be given an opportunity to inspect it . . . .” (Evid. Code, § 768, subd. (b), italics added; 

see also Evid. Code, § 771, subds. (a) & (b) [if a witness uses a writing to refresh his or 

her memory, such writing must be produced at the request of the adverse party, and if 

produced, the adverse party may “inspect” the writing].)
13

determined that the defendant was not prejudiced by the instruction. (Sánchez, supra, at 

pp. 462-463.) The court observed that “[t]he instruction cited the certainty factor in a 

neutral manner, telling the jury only that it could consider it. It did not suggest that 

certainty equals accuracy.” (Id. at p. 462.) “Moreover, the eyewitness identifications 

were far from the only evidence connecting [the] defendant to the crimes.” (Ibid.)

After briefing was completed in this case, the Supreme Court issued its decision in 

People v. Lemcke (2021) 11 Cal.5th 644 (Lemcke), which confirmed its previous holding 

in Sánchez. (Id. at p. 647.) In Lemcke, the defendant challenged CALCRIM No. 315, 

and its certainty factor, on due process grounds. Our high court rejected the defendant’s 

due process claims. (Lemcke, supra, at pp. 655-661.) The court held, “the instruction 

does not direct the jury that ‘certainty equals accuracy.’ [Citation.] Nor does the 

instruction state that the jury must presume an identification is accurate if the eyewitness 

has expressed certainty. [Citation.] Instead, the instruction merely lists the witness’s 

level of certainty at the time of identification as one of 15 different factors that the jury 

should consider when evaluating the credibility and accuracy of eyewitness testimony. 

The instruction leaves the jury to decide whether the witness expressed a credible claim 

of certainty and what weight, if any, should be placed on that certainty in relation to the 

numerous other factors listed in CALCRIM No. 315.” (Id. at p. 657.)

The Supreme Court acknowledged, however, that this version of CALCRIM 

No. 315 “has the potential to mislead jurors” given “the empirical research that ‘ “under 

most circumstances, witness confidence or certainty is not a good indicator of 

identification accuracy.” ’ ” (Lemcke, supra, 11 Cal.5th at p. 665.) Thus, while the 

defendant “failed to establish that the trial court’s decision to include the certainty factor 

in CALCRIM No. 315 violated his due process rights or otherwise constituted error under 

the circumstances presented here,” the court recognized the “risk that the current version 

of the instruction will prompt jurors to infer that an eyewitness’s certainty in an 

identification is generally a reliable indicator of accuracy.” (Id. at p. 669.) Thus, the 
14

court directed “trial courts to omit the certainty factor from CALCRIM No. 315 until the 

Judicial Council has the opportunity to consider how the language might be better 

worded to minimize juror confusion on this point.” (Ibid.)

Here, as in Sánchez, defendant forfeited any challenge to the trial court’s 

eyewitness identification instruction by failing to object to the instruction or request its 

modification. (Sánchez, supra, 63 Cal.4th at pp. 461-462.) Further, even assuming the 

claim was cognizable in this appeal, defendant has also failed to establish that the 

inclusion of the certainty factor in CALCRIM No. 315 violated her due process rights or 

otherwise constituted error under the circumstances presented. The certainty factor was 

only presented as “one of 15 factors the jury should consider when evaluating an 

eyewitness identification,” and its inclusion “did not render [defendant’s] trial 

fundamentally unfair or otherwise amount to a due process violation.” (Lemcke, supra, 

11 Cal.5th at p. 661.)

In sum, defendant has not established that the trial court committed reversible 

error by giving a version of CALCRIM No. 315 that included the certainty factor.

C. Cumulative Error

Defendant argues that the prosecutorial misconduct that she identified and the 

giving of CALCRIM No. 315, even if not individually prejudicial, combined to rise to the 

level of a due process violation. We disagree. We have rejected each of defendant’s

individual claims of error, except for two claims of prosecutorial misconduct where we 

found no prejudice even if error was assumed. Because there is no prejudice to cumulate, 

defendant’s cumulative error challenge is unavailing. (People v. Watkins (2012) 55 

Cal.4th 999, 1036.)

D. Fines and Fees

Defendant argues that imposition of court assessments and the restitution fine 

without an ability-to-pay hearing violated her state and federal constitutional rights. 

Defendant also argues that the criminal justice administration fee and probation 
15

supervision fee are no longer authorized and should be stricken based on the passage of 

Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) (Assembly Bill 1869). The Attorney 

General agrees that these two fees are no longer authorized, but contends that there is no 

need to strike them because “the fees automatically become uncollectable starting July 1, 

2021, without the involvement of the courts.”

1. Background

Defendant was sentenced on May 10, 2019. Immediately prior to her sentencing 

in the instant case, defendant pleaded no contest in an unrelated misdemeanor case

(No. C1906555) to misdemeanor hit and run causing property damage (Veh. Code, 

§ 20002, subd. (a)), misdemeanor flight from a pursuing officer (Id., § 2800.1, subd. (a)), 

and misdemeanor resisting, delaying, or obstructing a peace officer (§ 148, subd. (a)(1)). 

Defense counsel, who represented defendant in both the misdemeanor case and this case, 

asked the court in the misdemeanor case to stay the fines and fees based on defendant’s 

ability to pay. A hearing was therefore held.

At that hearing, defense counsel represented that defendant was last employed 

in 2017. Defendant stated that she planned to live at her father’s house, likely would go 

to college, and had previously worked at Tesla and Goodwill. She stated that she had 

reached out to Goodwill, and “they were willing to give me my job back as a customer 

associate.” Defendant’s father agreed that he would let defendant live with him. The 

court asked defendant, “So you don’t have any income right now, any monies you had 

would be from the generosity of your father?” Defendant replied, “Yes.” The court 

determined that it would “stay the fines and fees” pursuant to People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 

Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), but impose restitution of $1,000 for damage caused to 

another vehicle as a result of the hit-and-run offense. Defense counsel stated that 

defendant’s father “will cover the restitution for [defendant].”

The court then proceeded to sentencing in this case. Relevant here, the trial court 

imposed a crime prevention fee of $10 and a penalty assessment of $31 (§ 1202.5), a 
16

restitution fine of $300 and an additional restitution fine of $300 (§ 1202.44), a court 

security fee of $40, and a conviction assessment of $30. The court also imposed a 

criminal justice administration fee of $129.75 (Gov. Code, §§ 29550, former 29550.1, 

former 29550.2), and required defendant to pay probation supervision costs of $20 per 

month (§ 1203.1, subd. (b)). The court waived the presentence investigation fee of $450 

at defense counsel’s request.

2. Forfeiture

In Dueñas, the Second District Court of Appeal, Division Seven, reversed an order 

imposing the court operations assessment (§ 1465.8) and the court facilities assessment 

(Gov. Code, § 70373) after concluding that it was “fundamentally unfair” and violated 

due process under the federal and California Constitutions to impose the assessments 

without a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay. (Dueñas, supra, 30 

Cal.App.5th at p. 1168.) The court also concluded that the execution of a restitution fine 

under section 1202.4 “must be stayed unless and until the trial court holds an ability to 

pay hearing and concludes that the defendant has the present ability to pay the restitution 

fine.” (Dueñas, supra, at p. 1164.)

Preliminarily, the Attorney General argues that defendant has forfeited her claim 

of error because her sentencing hearing took place on May 10, 2019, several months after 

Dueñas was decided. We agree. In general, a defendant who fails to object to the 

imposition of fines, fees, and assessments at sentencing forfeits the right to challenge 

those fines, fees, and assessments on appeal. (People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862 , 

864; People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 853-854.) At the time of defendant’s 

sentencing hearing, Dueñas had already been decided, and there is no reason why 

defendant could not have requested an ability-to-pay hearing based on Dueñas. Indeed, 

immediately prior to the hearing in this case, defendant pleaded no contest and was 

sentenced in an unrelated misdemeanor case in which she requested and received an 
17

ability-to-pay hearing based on Dueñas. Defendant’s apparent decision to not raise the 

issue at the felony sentencing hearing forfeits her arguments on appeal.

Even if we were to find the issue preserved for review, we nonetheless would 

reject defendant’s Dueñas claim on the merits because we remain convinced that Dueñas

was wrongly decided for the reasons articulated in the dissent in People v. Santos (2019)

38 Cal.App.5th 923, 935-939 (dis. opn. of Elia, J.) and in the majority opinions in People 

v. Adams (2020) 44 Cal.App.5th 828, 832 and People v. Petri (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 82,

90. Accordingly, even if we were to address the merits of defendant’s claim, we would 

decline to remand for the trial court to hold an ability-to-pay hearing.

3. Assembly Bill 1869

While the Attorney General agrees that the probation supervision fee and criminal 

justice administration fee imposed in this case are no longer authorized, he contends that 

the fees need not be stricken and the fees “automatically become uncollectable starting 

July 1, 2021, without the involvement of the courts.” We disagree with the Attorney 

General’s analysis and conclude that the plain language of Assembly Bill 1869 authorizes 

this court to strike the fees from the judgment.

On September 18, 2020, the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1869. Effective July 

1, 2021, Assembly Bill 1869 “eliminate[d] the range of administrative fees that agencies 

and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system and . . .

eliminate[d] all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of [identified] 

administrative fees.” (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 2.)

Specifically, Assembly Bill 1869 abrogated the authority to impose and collect 

23 different administrative fees, including, as relevant here, the probation supervision fee

and the criminal justice administration fee. It did so by adding section 1465.9 to the 

Penal Code, and section 6111 to the Government Code. (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, §§ 11, 62.) 

Relevant to the probation supervision fee, section 1465.9, subdivision (a) provides, 

“On and after July 1, 2021, the balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to 
18

[s]ection 987.4, subdivision (a) of [s]ection 987.5, [s]ections 987.8, 1203, 1203.1e, 

1203.016, 1203.018, 1203.1b, 1208.2, 1210.15, 3010.8, 4024.2, and 6266, as those 

sections read on June 30, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion 

of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.”3

 (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 62.) 

Relevant to the criminal justice administration fee, Government Code section 6111

provides, “On and after July 1, 2021, the unpaid balance of any court-imposed costs 

pursuant to [Government Code] [s]ection 27712, subdivision (c) or (f) of [Government 

Code] [s]ection 29550, and [Government Code] [s]ections 29550.1, 29550.2, and 

29550.3, as those sections read on June 30, 2021, is unenforceable and uncollectible and 

any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, 

§ 11.)

“We exercise de novo review when we engage in statutory construction.” (People 

v. Brackins (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 56, 65.) “Statutory construction begins with the plain, 

commonsense meaning of the words in the statute, ‘ “because it is generally the most 

reliable indicator of legislative intent and purpose.” ’ [Citation.] ‘When the language of 

a statute is clear, we need go no further.’ ” (People v. Manzo (2012) 53 Cal.4th 880, 

885.) “Absent any indicia of a contrary legislative intent, the word ‘shall’ is ordinarily 

construed as mandatory . . . . [Citation] This is especially so when both ‘shall’ and 

‘may’ are used in the same statute.” (People v. Hardacre (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 1392, 

1398.)

In this case, we need not apply the presumption of retroactivity (see In re Estrada

(1965) 63 Cal.2d 740), because by its plain terms the ameliorative changes of Assembly 

Bill 1869 apply retroactively to make any unpaid portion of the identified assessments, as 

they existed on June 30, 2021, “unenforceable and uncollectible” as of July 1, 2021. 

(Stats. 2020, ch. 92, §§ 11, 62.) In addition to making any unpaid portion of the 

3 Section 1203.1b authorized imposition of the probation supervision fee.
19

identified assessments void by operation of law, however, the plain language of 

Government Code section 6111 and section 1465.9 not only authorizes, but mandates, 

vacation of a portion of a judgment for the purpose of striking the now-unauthorized 

assessments—here, the unpaid balance of the probation supervision and criminal justice 

administration fees. Specifically, after declaring that the identified fees are now

“unenforceable and uncollectible,” the relevant statutes then state, “and any portion of a 

judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.” (Gov. Code, § 6111, subd. (a); 

§ 1465.9, subd. (a), italics added.) Significantly, “[t]he Legislature also used the 

conjunctive ‘and’ which must be given effect under traditional statutory interpretation 

rules.” (In re Carr (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 1525, 1536.) Thus, although the unpaid 

balance of the identified fees is no longer enforceable and collectible, the statute also

mandates that any portion of a judgment imposing those fees be vacated.4

 Accordingly, 

based on the plain language of the statute, the unpaid balance of the probation 

supervision and criminal justice administration fees must be vacated.

5

E. Maximum Term of Probation

Defendant contends that her probation term should be reduced to two years 

because a three-year term of probation is no longer authorized. The Attorney General 

agrees that defendant is entitled to a remand for a reduction of the probation term.

Assembly Bill No. 1950 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), which took effect on January 1, 

2021 (Stats. 2020, ch. 328, § 2), amended section 1203.1 to limit to two years the length 

4 We note that Division One of the Fourth District Court of Appeal recently 

reached the same conclusion, concluding that “by its express terms, section 6111 

envisions that the referenced costs are to be vacated, and it makes the vacatur mandatory 

through its use of the word ‘shall.’ ” (People v. Lopez-Vinck (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 945, 

953.)

5 This appeal involves a probation order, not a judgment. However, we construe 

the statutes to apply to probation orders. It is inconceivable that the Legislature’s use of 

the word “judgment” was intended to preclude the statutes’ application to a probation 

order.
20

of a probationary period for a felony conviction. (§ 1203.1.) We agree with the cases 

that have held that this amendment is retroactive to all nonfinal cases. (People v. Sims

(2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 943; People v. Quinn (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 874; People v. 

Burton (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th Supp. 1). Defendant’s case is not yet final. Consequently, 

a remand is appropriate for the trial court to apply the amended statute.

III. DISPOSITION

The probation order is reversed. On remand, the trial court is directed to amend 

the probation order to vacate the portion of the court operations fee and the probation 

supervision fee that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021, and to reduce the term of 

probation to two years.
_________________________________

ELIA, ACTING P.J.

WE CONCUR:

_______________________________

GROVER, J.

_______________________________

DANNER, J.

People v. Greeley

H047281
Trial Court: Santa Clara County Superior Court

Superior Court No: C1896747

Trial Judge: Honorable Kenneth Paul Barnum

Counsel for Plaintiff and Respondent:

THE PEOPLE

Xavier Becerra

Attorney General

Matthew Rodriguez

Acting Attorney General

Lance E. Winters

Chief Assistant Attorney General

Jeffrey M. Laurence

Senior Assistant Attorney General

Seth K. Schalit

Supervising Deputy Attorney General

Lisa H. Ashley-Ott

Deputy Attorney General

Counsel for Defendant and Appellant:

SALISA CHEYENNE GREELEY

Paul R. Kraus

By appointment of the Sixth District Appellate Program