The court determined section 1202.4 punished indigent defendants in a way that it does not punish wealthy defendants, who could successfully complete the terms of their probation and obtain relief from the conviction, charges, penalties, and disabilities of the offense.
3d 100).Īpplying these, cases in what the court called Griffin-Antazo-Bearden analysis, the court held that the imposition of unpayable fines on indigent defendants was not just unfair, but served no rational purpose, failed to further legislative intent, and was counterproductive. at 17).And citing Antazo, the court stated that a state may not inflict punishment on indigent convicted criminal defendants solely on the basis of their poverty.
at 668) Citing Griffin, the court stated that due process and equal protection require that a statute may not further invidious discrimination. Citing Bearden, the court states that the due process inquiry depends on whether it is “fundamentally unfair” to use the criminal justice system to impose punitive burdens on probationers who have “made all reasonable efforts to pay the fine or restitution, and yet cannot do so through no fault of own.” Dueñas, 30 Cal. The appellate court applied a due process inquiry that relied primarily on three cases: Bearden v. In the order on appeal and at issue, Dueñas was ordered to pay $220, $150 of which was a restitution fine that the judge told Dueñas he could not waive because her situation lacked the “compelling and extraordinary reasons” required by statute. Dueñas was convicted of a series of misdemeanor offenses for driving with a suspended license, and in each case was given the impossible choice whether to pay mandatory fees and fines which she could not afford or go to jail. The case involved a homeless probationer, Velia Dueñas, who suffered from cerebral palsy, was unable to work, and received public assistance. Direct restitution was not at issue in Dueñas, only fines. Dueñas, the Second District, Division 7, held that due process requires that restitution fines be subject to an “ability to pay” hearing.
0 kommentar(er)
