Court Opinion

ID: 9896916
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:03:54.734886+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:14:52.876891
License: Public Domain

Filed 11/14/23 P. v. Payne CA3
                                            NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or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
                                       THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
                                                          (Yuba)
                                                             ----

 THE PEOPLE,                                                                                   C097378

                    Plaintiff and Respondent,                                    (Super. Ct. No. CRF202172)

           v.

 SHIRELLE ELIZABETH PAYNE,

                    Defendant and Appellant.

         After pleading no contest to burglary and possession of paraphernalia, defendant
Shirelle Elizabeth Payne was ordered to pay various assessments and fines totaling $410.
On appeal, defendant argues that the assessments must be stayed pending an ability-to-pay
hearing and that the restitution fine was unconstitutional. We will affirm.
                          FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
         On September 17, 2020, defendant was discovered outside a warehouse in
possession of someone else’s violin and boots. The owner of these items took them back
from defendant and called the police. When the police contacted defendant, they
determined that she was under the influence and in possession of methamphetamine pipes.

                                                              1
The People charged defendant with second degree robbery (Pen. Code,1 § 211), burglary
(§ 459), and possession of paraphernalia (Health & Saf. Code, § 11364).
       On March 9, 2022, defendant pleaded no contest to burglary and possession of
paraphernalia. After defendant failed to appear for sentencing, the court sentenced
defendant to the upper term of three years for the burglary conviction with a concurrent
term of six months for possession of paraphernalia. The court also ordered defendant to
pay a $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) with an additional suspended $300 parole revocation
restitution fine (§ 1202.45), a $40 fine pursuant to section 1202.5, a $40 court operations
assessment (§ 1465.8), and a $30 Government Code section 70373 conviction assessment.
       Defendant timely filed a notice of appeal. Pursuant to section 1237.2, defendant
requested the trial court stay the challenged assessments and restitution fine pending an
ability-to-pay hearing. The trial court denied the request.
                                         DISCUSSION
       Defendant contends that the assessments imposed under section 1465.8 and
Government Code section 70373 must be stayed pending an ability-to-pay hearing as set
forth in People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. She also argues that imposing a
restitution fine without consideration of defendant’s ability to pay violates the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution and the equal protection provisions of the
United States Constitution and the California Constitution.
       The People submit that defendant has forfeited all claims by failing to raise them
below. We agree. A defendant who does not object to the fines and assessments imposed,
and does not assert in the trial court the right to a hearing on the ability to pay, forfeits the
issue on appeal. (People v. Lowery (2020) 43 Cal.App.5th 1046, 1053.) This is true even
though some of defendant’s claims are constitutional in character. (See People v. Trujillo
(2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 859; In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 880-881.)

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

                                                2
       Anticipating this conclusion, defendant asserts that trial counsel’s failure to object
amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel. On direct appeal, a judgment will be reversed
for ineffective assistance “only if (1) the record affirmatively discloses counsel had no
rational tactical purpose for the challenged act or omission, (2) counsel was asked for a
reason and failed to provide one, or (3) there simply could be no satisfactory explanation.”
(People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009.) Here, the record does not affirmatively
establish that defendant lacked the ability to pay the fines and assessments imposed. Nor
does the record disclose that counsel had no tactical purpose in declining to request a
hearing on the ability to pay. In fact, it is possible that defendant’s trial counsel had
information regarding defendant’s resources that does not appear in the record and
decided, based on that information, that an ability-to-pay hearing was unwarranted.
Accordingly, we reject defendant’s claim.
                                        DISPOSITION
       The judgment is affirmed.

                                                    /s/
                                                   Wiseman, J.*

We concur:

 /s/
Mauro, Acting P. J.

 /s/
Renner, J.

* Retired Associate Justice of the Court of Appeal, Fifth Appellate District, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to article VI, section 6 of the California Constitution.

                                               3