People v. Kopp

Summary

The California Supreme Court addresses challenges to fines and ancillary costs imposed as part of criminal sentencing. It holds that challenges to the amount of a criminal fine should initially be reviewed under the federal and California constitutional excessive-fines provisions, while challenges to certain ancillary assessments raise equal protection issues requiring consideration of a defendant’s inability to pay upon request. The opinion also addresses the effect of legislation making certain previously imposed fees and fines unenforceable and uncollectible.

Holdings

1. The Constitution does not require an ability-to-pay hearing before every punitive criminal fine is imposed. A nonexcessive fine may be imposed on an indigent defendant, subject to the prohibition against punishing a defendant solely for a nonwillful inability to pay.
2. A challenge to the amount of a punitive criminal fine should initially be reviewed under the excessive fines provisions of the Eighth Amendment and article I, section 17 of the California Constitution.
3. Upon a criminal defendant's request, the court must consider the defendant's inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1).
4. The drug program fee may not be imposed unless the court determines that the defendant has the ability to pay it.
5. Inability to pay cannot justify eliminating the statutory minimum restitution fine, but it must be considered in setting any restitution fine above the $300 felony minimum. The parole revocation fine must be imposed in the same amount as the restitution fine and suspended unless parole is revoked.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a defendant's inability to pay must be considered before imposing every punitive criminal fine.
2. Whether a challenge to the amount of a criminal fine is properly analyzed under due process and equal protection principles or under the federal and California excessive fines clauses.
3. Whether equal protection requires courts, upon a criminal defendant's request, to consider inability to pay before imposing court operations and court facilities assessments.
4. What monetary obligations remained enforceable or required reconsideration under subsequently enacted legislation.
5. Whether the drug program fee and the amount of the restitution and parole revocation fines required statutory ability-to-pay determinations on remand.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded