Criminal Justice

Indigent defendants caught in the cycle of poverty and court debt will reap the benefits from a state appellate panel's reversal of a superior court judge's order to impose court fees on a homeless woman. The higher court found that using the criminal justice system to collect a fine she could not pay violates the due process clause of the U. S, and California Constitutions.

"I think sometimes people see these individual cases, individual misdemeanors as small, but they make a huge difference to people's lives and people's ability to access housing and employment and education and to obtain economic security for themselves and families," said Kathryn Eidmann of Public Counsel who argued on behalf of her client Velia Dueñas in an appellate court last year.

Dueñas is a homeless and disabled mother of two, who after pleading no contest to driving with a suspended license, was issued $220 in court fees and fines, without the court taking consideration of her inability to pay. Her journey through the justice system began when she received three juvenile citations as a teenager and as a result owed a $1,088 debt. She was unable to pay, so her driver's license was suspended.

Four misdemeanors later -- three for driving with a suspended license she said she could not afford to reinstate and one for failing to appear in court -- Dueñas had spent an accumulated 51 days in jail in lieu of paying fines. Before challenging this latest round of court fees, Dueñas had spent almost a decade in debt to the court and claimed it was because she could not afford to pay fines associated with her juvenile citations. People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157.

On a tip from a friend in the public defender's office who had seen countless indigent defendants trapped in court debt, Eidmann and Alisa Heartz of Public Counsel, along with Elizabeth Hadaway now of Susman Godfrey LLP, were made aware of Dueñas situation and decided to take her on as client. They argued that imposing court fees and fines without taking into consideration her inability to pay violated Dueñas' state and federal rights.

Justice Laurie D. Zelon and a 2nd District Court of Appeal panel agreed. Zelon also invited the Legislature to consider changes to the statutes, in her published opinion.

"Whatever hardships 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 wrote.

The decision could impact thousands of indigent individuals faced with unaffordable fines.

"It was particularly exciting to work on this case because there is a movement across the nation and California challenging the criminalization of poverty and practices that punish people simply for being poor," Heartz wrote in an email. "It is thrilling to see the effects of Ms. Dueñas' case ripple out into the community that supported her."

The court found defendants may not be issued court and operation fees in the first instance and can only be charged a restitution fine after the court has proven they have the ability to pay.

"To argue this case and be before a panel of justices who clearly were taking this issue seriously and really understood the practical and day-to-day burden that these court fees impose on the indigent was incredibly meaningful and a reminder of why we do this work, and why this work is so important," Eidmann said.

-- Blaise Scemama