Court Opinion

ID: 9940542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-14 18:03:09.871616+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:44:58.797684
License: Public Domain

Filed 2/14/24 P. v. Ulmer CA1/2
                  NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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.

          IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

                                      FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT

                                                   DIVISION TWO

 THE PEOPLE,
           Plaintiff and Respondent,
                                                                        A167640
 v.
 KALUB ULMER,                                                           (Humboldt County
                                                                        Super. Ct. No. CR2202629)
           Defendant and Appellant.

         Kalub Ulmer appeals from the judgment entered against him after a
negotiated plea, challenging only the trial court’s imposition of a restitution
fine that exceeds the $300 statutory minimum. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd.
(b)(1).1) Because there is no substantial evidence to support the trial court’s
decision to impose a restitution fine in the amount of $1,600, we will reverse
and remand for the trial court to impose the statutory minimum fine.
                    FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         We draw our summary of the underlying facts from the probation
report. In July 2022, Ulmer was walking down the street carrying a crowbar
and a skateboard when he was approached by a police officer who recognized
him based on previous contacts, and who was aware of a law enforcement

         1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise

stated.

                                                               1
bulletin advising that Ulmer was a parolee possibly in possession of a
firearm. When the officer attempted to detain Ulmer, a struggle ensued in
which Ulmer broke free. The officer regained control of Ulmer and
handcuffed him and, with the help of a second officer, brought Ulmer to a
patrol vehicle. On the way to the car, Ulmer head-butted the first officer and
began to pull away. After a brief struggle, the officers gained control of
Ulmer. A search of Ulmer incident to the arrest recovered “a live 9mm round
and a live .44 round on his person and in his backpack,” a 4.5 inch fixed-blade
knife in his right back pants pocket, and three methamphetamine pipes.
      Ulmer was charged in a felony complaint with two felony counts
(unlawful possession of ammunition [§ 30305, subd. (a)(1)] and carrying a
dirk or dagger [§ 21310]) and two misdemeanor counts (resisting or
obstructing a public officer [§ 148, subd. (a)(1)] and possession of a smoking
device [Health & Saf. Code, § 11364, subd. (a)]). The complaint also alleged
two prior strike convictions and several aggravating factors.
      Ulmer was remanded into custody in November 2022. At a hearing in
February 2023, Ulmer pleaded guilty to all four counts and admitted the two
strikes as part of a plea agreement under which he would be sentenced to 16
months in state prison. The court accepted the plea, and then granted
Ulmer’s Romero motion to strike the two prior strikes.2
      At the sentencing hearing in March 2023, the court sentenced Ulmer to
the low term of 16 months for each of the felony counts, to be served
concurrently, with the one-year misdemeanor terms to also run concurrently.
Ulmer received a total of 269 days of custody credit. The court imposed a
restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), in the amount of $1,600,

      2 People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497.

                                       2
as had been recommended by the probation department without any analysis
in its written report. The fine was imposed over Ulmer’s objection. His
counsel had asked that the restitution fine be reduced, stating, “Mr. Ulmer
was homeless upon entering custody. He is going to be doing a prison term,
and then he will be getting out and trying to raise his family.”3 At the
conclusion of the hearing, Ulmer’s counsel raised the issue again, stating, “we
are just objecting for the record on the restitution fine given his financial
status.” The trial court responded, “Understood.”
      This appeal timely followed the judgment.
                                 DISCUSSION
A.    Applicable Law and Standard of Review
      California law provides that “[i]n every case where a person is
convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional
restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not
doing so and states those reasons on the record.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) “The
restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate
with the seriousness of the offense.” (Id., subd. (b)(1).) The minimum fine
that may be imposed on a person convicted of a felony is $300; the maximum
is $10,000. (Ibid.)
      A court imposing a restitution fine greater than the minimum “shall
consider any relevant factors, including but not limited to, the defendant’s
ability to pay, the seriousness and gravity of the offense and the
circumstances of its commission, any economic gain derived by the defendant
as a result of the crime, the extent to which any other person suffered losses
as a result of the crime, and the number of victims involved in the

      3 As the court was aware, Ulmer’s partner had given birth to her and

Ulmer’s child about 10 days before the sentencing hearing.

                                        3
crime. . . . Consideration of a defendant’s inability to pay may include the
defendant’s future earning capacity.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (d).) The defendant
bears the burden of demonstrating inability to pay. (Ibid.) There is no
requirement that the court make express findings as to the factors bearing on
the amount of the fine. (Ibid.)
      We review the imposition of a restitution fine in excess of the minimum
for abuse of discretion. (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227.) Under
this standard, we review the trial court’s findings of fact, express or implied,
for substantial evidence, its conclusions of law de novo, and we reverse its
application of the law to the facts “only if arbitrary and capricious.”
(Haraguchi v. Superior Court (2008) 43 Cal.4th 706, 711-712.)
B.    Analysis
      In exercising its discretion to impose a restitution fine in excess of the
statutory minimum, the trial court was required to consider the factors listed
in section 1202.4. (§ 1202.4, subd. (d).) In view of the evidence presented to
the trial court in this case concerning Ulmer’s inability to pay, the imposition
of a $1,600 fine was an abuse of discretion.
      In objecting to the amount of the restitution fine, Ulmer’s counsel
informed the court that Ulmer was homeless when he entered custody and
that he would be trying to raise a family when he was released from prison.
The record shows that when Ulmer was remanded into custody in November
2022, he reported that he was homeless and unemployed. According to the
probation report, prepared in March 2023, Ulmer reported that he had been
doing odd jobs “ ‘under the table’ . . . ‘whenever the opportunity presented
itself,’ ” and had been receiving about $280 per month in CalFresh benefits.
Ulmer’s last job, which he held between January and March 2021, was as a
cook at a restaurant. Between his prior prison terms, he had worked as a

                                        4
cook, a warehouser, and a day laborer. According to Ulmer’s financial data
form, submitted to the court with the probation report, Ulmer claimed no
assets and reported no debts, and because he had been incarcerated since
November 2022, he claimed no regular monthly expenses.
      In sum, the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the
trial court’s implied finding that Ulmer had the ability to pay the restitution
fine imposed by the trial court. (See People v. Pacheco (2010) 187
Cal.App.4th 1392, 1398 [“finding of ability to pay must be supported by
substantial evidence”].)
      Nor does the record contain substantial evidence to support imposing
the $1,600 fine as the result of applying the other statutory factors, including
because of “the seriousness and gravity of the offense and the circumstances
of its commission.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (d).) The Attorney General’s sole
argument is that the “restitution fine was justified by the seriousness of
appellant’s crimes” and that the trial court judge must have implicitly found
that Ulmer’s “violent conduct [that is, head-butting the detaining officer and
resisting the officers until he was subdued] along with willful actions that
endangered the public [that is, carrying live ammunition as a convicted felon
and carrying a knife], was serious enough to warrant a fine that exceeded the
minimum amount for restitution fines.” This argument is undercut by the
fact that Ulmer’s actions toward the officers were charged as a misdemeanor
and by the trial court’s remark at sentencing that it was “looking through the
fact pattern, seeing that these are largely status crimes due to your past
criminality. Meaning that the ordinary citizen likely wouldn’t be facing any
charges on this.”

                                       5
      Further, there is no evidence that Ulmer derived “any economic gain
. . . as a result of the crime,” or that “any other person suffered losses as a
result of the crime,” and there were no victims involved. (§ 1202.4, subd. (d).)
      In the absence of substantial evidence to support a finding by the trial
court that any of the factors listed in section 1202.4 support imposing a
restitution fine that exceeds the minimum amount by $1,300, we conclude
that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a $1,600 restitution fine.
(See People v. Cluff (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 991, 998 [trial court abuses its
discretion when factual findings underlying its decision are not supported by
substantial evidence]).
                                 DISPOSITION
      The restitution fine is reversed and the matter is remanded for the
sentencing court to impose the minimum restitution fine of $300 under
section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1). In all other respects the judgment is
affirmed.

                                         6
                                _________________________
                                Miller, J.

WE CONCUR:

_________________________
Stewart, P. J.

_________________________
Richman, J.

A167640, People v. Ulmer

                            7