Filed 10/24/23 P. v. Roberson CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for 

publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication

or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

MICHAEL TYRONE ROBERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D081235

 (Super. Ct. No. SCN435717)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, 

Sim von Kalinowski, Judge. Affirmed.

Patrick Dudley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for 

Defendant and Appellant.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant 

Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Assistant Attorney General, 

Arlene A. Sevidal, James M. Toohey, and Jon S. Tangonan, Deputy Attorneys 

General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

Michael Tyrone Roberson was convicted after a bench trial of assault 

with force likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code,2 § 245, subd. 

(a)(4)), battery resulting in serious bodily injury (id., § 243, subd. (d)), and 

possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)).

The trial court sentenced Roberson to 16 years in prison and imposed a 

restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4), a stayed parole revocation fine (id., 

§ 1202.45), a court operations assessment (id., § 1465.8), and a criminal 

conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373). 

Roberson argues on appeal that: (1) there was insufficient evidence to 

prove that he was not acting in self-defense, and (2) the trial court’s 

imposition of fines and assessments without determining ability to pay 

violated Roberson’s due process rights. We find no error and affirm the 

judgment.

I

In July 2022, Roberson and the victim got into an argument in 

Oceanside, California, where both were living on the street. Roberson is

about six feet tall and weighed around 220 pounds at the time. The victim, a 

woman in her late 50s, is five feet six inches tall, and weighed about 120 

pounds. The victim confronted Roberson because she thought he stole 

something from her cart. During their argument, Roberson punched the 

1 We resolve this case by memorandum opinion pursuant to the 

California Standards of Judicial Administration, section 8.1.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 
3

victim in the face with a closed fist. The victim underwent surgery for severe 

injuries to her jaw, lost multiple teeth, and spent several days in the hospital. 

Roberson told officers at the scene that he hit the victim because she 

called him “the N word” and spit on him. The victim denied doing either. A 

nearby witness also said he did not see the victim threaten Roberson, spit on 

him, or raise a weapon against him. 

II

On review, we must “ ‘examine the entire record in the light most 

favorable to the judgment to determine whether it contains substantial 

evidence—that is, evidence that is reasonable, credible, and of solid value—

that would support a rational trier of fact in finding [the defendant guilty] 

beyond a reasonable doubt.’ [Citations.]” (People v. San Nicolas (2004) 34 

Cal.4th 614, 657–658.) We must “presume in support of the judgment the 

existence of every fact the trier could reasonably deduce from the evidence.” 

(People v. Jones (1990) 51 Cal.3d 294, 314.) We do not reweigh the evidence, 

reappraise the credibility of witnesses, or settle factual conflicts, as such 

functions are within the exclusive arena of the trier of fact. (People v. Xiong

(2013) 215 Cal.App.4th 1259, 1268 (Xiong).) 

After considering CALCRIM No. 3470, the jury instruction on selfdefense,3 the trial court first found that Roberson’s statements about the 

victim using a racial epithet and spitting on him, lacked credibility. We do 

not re-examine the court’s credibility determinations, and Roberson points to 

3 CALCRIM No. 3470 reads, in relevant part, that a defendant is not 

guilty of a charged crime where he used force against another if he: 

“[(1)] . . . reasonably believed that [he] . . . was in imminent danger of 

suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched 

unlawfully]; [¶] [(2)] . . . reasonably believed that the immediate use of force 

was necessary to defend against that danger; [¶] AND [¶] [(3)] . . . used no 

more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.”
4

no other evidence that he believed he was in imminent danger. (Xiong, 

supra, 215 Cal.App.4th at p. 1268; see CALCRIM No. 3470.) To assert selfdefense, a defendant “must actually believe in the need to defend 

himself . . . .” (People v. Viramontes (2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 1256, 1262.) 

Absent credible evidence that the victim used any threatening language or 

spat on Roberson, and given testimony to the contrary, we conclude that 

substantial evidence supports the court’s implicit finding that Roberson did 

not believe he was in danger. 

The court further found that even if it believed Roberson’s statements

at the scene to be credible, the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that 

Roberson used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against 

any danger arising from the victim’s alleged actions. Evidence showed that 

the victim was unarmed, and that Roberson was much larger in stature than 

the victim. (See People v. Smith (1907) 151 Cal. 619, 627–628 [disparity in 

relative physical condition is relevant to self-defense].) While Roberson 

points to no evidence that he suffered any injuries during the altercation, the 

record contains ample evidence that the victim suffered extensive injuries 

requiring surgery and several days in the hospital. The court reasoned that 

while “[p]ushing someone away might have been” a reasonably necessary 

response, “a full-force punch into somebody’s face” was not. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that 

substantial evidence also supports the court’s finding that Roberson did not 

act in self-defense because he used more force than was reasonably 

necessary.

III

Relying on People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas), 

Roberson also asserts that the trial court erred by imposing $300 in 
5

restitution fines (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)), a stayed $300 parole 

revocation fine (id., § 1202.45), an $80 court operations assessment (id., 

§ 1465.8), and a $60 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373),

without making any determination that he had the ability to pay.4 We 

conclude that Roberson forfeited the ability to pay issue by failing to raise it 

at sentencing, which occurred more than three years after Dueñas was 

decided. 

At sentencing, when the trial court imposed the fines and assessments, 

Roberson did not argue that he lacked the ability to pay these fines and did 

not request a hearing on his ability to pay. In fact, the court stated that it 

was imposing the minimum $300 restitution fine “although it was 

recommended that the defendant pay a restitution fine of $10,000 . . . based 

upon the court’s understanding of the defendant’s financial circumstances.” 

“The concept of forfeiture for failure to raise ability to pay fines, fees or 

assessments is well established in our case law . . . .” (People v. Keene (2019) 

43 Cal.App.5th 861, 864 [holding defendant forfeited Dueñas issue by failing 

to raise it at sentencing even though he was represented by counsel and “was 

aware of the recommended amount of money proposed to be assessed against 

him”].) Roberson’s “silence [on the ability to pay issue] is a classic example of 

the application of the forfeiture doctrine relied upon by the California 

Supreme Court in numerous criminal sentencing cases decided well before 

Dueñas.” (People v. Gutierrez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1033 [holding 

4 Other California courts have disagreed with the holding of Dueñas, and 

the issue is currently pending before our Supreme Court. (People v. Kopp 

(2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 47, review granted Nov. 13, 2019, S257844.)
6

defendant forfeited ability to pay argument regarding restitution fine and 

fees by failing to object at sentencing].) 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed. 

BUCHANAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

IRION, Acting P.J.

RUBIN, J.