Panel: Court fees for the indigent are unconstitutional

In a huge win for indigent defendants caught in the revolving cycle of poverty and court fees, a panel of state appellate judges reversed a superior court judge's order to impose fees on a homeless woman, saying using the criminal justice system to collect a fine she could not pay is unconstitutional.

The unanimous 2nd District Court of Appeal panel also invited the Legislature to consider changes to the statutes.

After pleading no contest to driving with a suspended license, Velia Dueñas, a homeless mother of two suffering from a disability, was assessed a $220 fine and put on probation by the trial court.

Dueñas' attorneys from Public Counsel then argued that imposing the fees and fines without considering her inability to pay violated her state and federal constitutional rights. The panel agreed, quoting Preston v. Municipal Court 188 Cal.App.2d 76, 87-88 in the opinion authored by Justice Laurie D. Zelon.

"Whatever hardship poverty may cause in the society generally, the judicial process must make itself available to the indigent; it must free itself of sanctions born of financial inability," Zelon quoted in Tuesday's opinion. People v. Dueñas 2019 DJDAR 209.

The panel also concluded due process requires the trial court to conduct a hearing to ascertain a defendant's ability to pay conviction fines before imposing court facilities and court operations fees.

Although Penal Code section 1202.4 states a defendant's inability to pay is not a compelling reason for waiving the fine, the panel ruled that any restitution fines imposed under this statute must be stayed until the trial court holds a hearing and the defendant is found to have the ability to pay.

"We invite the Legislature to consider whether the statute should be amended to direct a trial court to consider the defendant's ability to pay in imposing the fines," Zelon wrote.

According to the opinion, after dropping out of high school and being unable to secure a job due to her illness, Dueñas received three juvenile driving citations. Since she was unable to pay her debt, her driver's license was suspended. Dueñas was unable to have her license reinstated because she could not afford the overdue fees. Over the next several years, Dueñas received three misdemeanor convictions for driving with a suspended license and one conviction for failing to appear in court.

Kathryn Eidmann of Public Counsel, who represented Dueñas, said her situation is not uncommon among low-income or indigent defendants.

"She has been enmeshed in the court system for almost a decade for no reason other than inability to pay court fees," said Eidmann.

Defendants who can pay the fees are able to exit the court system and go on with their lives but low-income defendants are saddled with spiraling and increasing debt. If they are unable to pay court fee within the probation period, they are assessed an additional $300 penalty fee, Eidmann noted.

If they are still unable to pay, the debt is sent to a third party collection agency which adds additional charges to cover the cost of the collection. Wages can be garnished, assets can be levied, tax refunds can be intercepted and time in the criminal justices system is extended.

Brandon Greene of the East Bay Community Law Center, who among many attorneys acting as amici curiae on behalf of the defendant prosecuting agencies and appellant, said 80 to 90 percent of those criminally charged nationwide qualify for the services of a public defender. "We should question why is it in a system where 80-90 percent of the people charged are poor enough to qualify for a public defender, would we then say being poor is not a significant enough reason to waive a fee," Greene said.

The Los Angeles County district attorney's office and the Los Angeles city attorney's office declined to comment.