A California Appeals Court Hearing in People v. Duenas challenges California’s practice of imposing court fines and fees without considering a defendant’s ability to pay.
LOS ANGELES — Today, the California Second District Court of Appeals heard an appeal brought by Velia Dueñas, a homeless, disabled, indigent mother of two who is challenging the State’s imposition of court fines and fees without taking into account her inability to pay. In total, Ms. Dueñas has been sentenced to ninety days in jail for driving with a license that was suspended for failure to pay past court debt, plus an additional fifty-one days in jail due to her inability to pay the statutory fines associated with each conviction. Even though the court found that she was indigent, Ms. Dueñas was assessed an additional $220 in court fines and fees. She is represented by Public Counsel.
Ms. Dueñas’s case challenges California’s practice of punishing the poor for being poor by imposing court-ordered fines and fees without considering the ability to pay. The state’s court fees, already among the highest in the nation, have significantly increased in the past decade. Though it is illegal under state and federal law to punish individuals for their poverty, California does not consider a defendant’s financial status when assessing court fines and fees. As a result, thousands of indigent individuals across the state who are faced with unaffordable fines become trapped in a cycle of poverty, including incarceration, escalating debt and harsh collections methods, reduced credit scores, and inability to access expungement– solely for the crime of being poor.
“This case is representative of a state-sponsored system that traps the most vulnerable Californians in an inescapable cycle of deepening poverty and criminal justice involvement,” said Kathryn Eidmann, senior supervising staff attorney at Public Counsel. “Imposing burdensome court fees on people who undisputedly cannot afford to pay them creates barriers to accessing employment, education, transportation, and housing, preventing any hope of meaningful rehabilitation and reentry. This threatens the economic self-sufficiency and minimum subsistence of low-income families. As a result, mandatory court fees and fines infringe on the basic liberties of indigent defendants like Ms. Dueñas.”
The fees at issue in the case are intended to generate revenue. Consequently, enforcing the payment of these mandatory fees from indigent defendants who cannot provide the money not only fails achieve the stated purpose, it is counterproductive.
“It’s clear that these court fees are unjust, but they are also ineffective in raising revenue,” said Alisa Hartz, staff attorney at Public Counsel. “When a defendant cannot pay a fine, and it is clear that shewill not have the ability to pay in the future, the only effect of the fines is to increase her debt and keep her in poverty. Further, sometimes it costs more to collect the unpaid fees than the fees themselves are worth—and these costs are paid by taxpayers. This outdated and unjust system criminalizes poverty and fails to meet its stated goal.”
The case brings federal and state constitutional claims that challenge the imposition of mandatory court fees on indigent defendants. California courts have the ability to remedy the current practice by considering a defendant’s ability to pay and providing alternative methods of restitution.
###
