California libertarian groups are cheering a state Supreme Court ruling that wipes out hundreds of dollars in fines for a reputed Mexican Mafia member — a move they say strengthens protections for impoverished defendants in other crimes.
“This holding is a positive step toward a justice system that doesn’t punish people for poverty,” said Public Counsel Kathryn Eidmann, whose landmark 2019 victory set the stage for Monday’s decision.
The decision bolsters recent efforts to protect California inmates from what Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu called the “negative effects” of administrative liability.
“Although a defendant’s poverty does not disqualify him from being punished for violating the law, our justice system should not punish a defendant harshly just because he is poor,” Liu wrote in agreement.
This case is one of the points that will appear after People v. Dueñas, a 2019 ruling from the federal appeals division found mandatory fines for poor people violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits excessive fines and cruel and unusual punishment.
Velia Dueñas was a homeless mother with cerebral palsy and two young children who ended up locked up and in debt because she continued to drive after her license was suspended over three unpaid citations she received as a child.
Jason Hernandez, whose victory Monday bolsters those defenses, was described in court as the head of the Varrio Fallbrook Locos gang and a “shooter” for the Mexican Mafia. Hernandez was convicted of torturing a woman he said owed him money – stabbing her in the head and neck and breaking several bones in her face – then conspiring to kill a man who witnessed the incident.
In 2019 he was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison and ordered to pay $10,000 in restitution to the state victims’ fund – money he told the court he did not have.
California officials argued the violations were not enough to justify the passage of Hernandez’s bill.
“He committed an aggravated assault in which he inflicted self-inflicted injury,” the state said in a 2020 brief. “In order to avoid prosecution for that attack he conspired to kill one witness and tried to stop another witness from testifying against him. All these crimes he committed to help a gang and he had a long history of serious crimes before.”
Hernandez was also assessed a number of administrative fines and fees, including lab testing, drug program, booking fees, probation and court costs.
The high court ruling vacated the hundreds of dollars in administrative fees Hernandez faced and sent the $10,000 restitution fine to the lower court for reconsideration.
Such funds have come under much scrutiny in recent years. Supporters say they are helping to pay the costs of bringing justice. Critics say they bury prisoners in debt and send them back to prison simply because they are poor.
After Dueñas’ decision, California lawmakers passed a bill that would force courts to decide whether defendants can pay before charging the remaining fines – effectively enshrining the decision as state law.
Gov. Gavin Newsom voted for this bill in 2019.
“We must address the issue of burdensome fines, fees and assessments that disproportionately drive low-income people into debt and out of full participation in their communities,” Newsom wrote at the time. “However, I do not believe that requiring a hearing on the defendant’s ability to pay is the best course of action in all cases.”
In response, the legislature voted to eliminate some of the state’s most controversial bills and make others null and void. What emerged in the years that followed was a series of conflicting appeals court decisions, which the Supreme Court attempted to resolve on Monday.
“Although today’s decision adopts a less constitutional framework than Dueñas, it confirms the main principle that has helped the development of our work: Courts must take into account a person’s inability to pay before imposing a certain judicial assessment,” said Eidmann.
The decision does not go as far as Newsom’s veto bill but expands more room for poor inmates to avoid or challenge court-imposed fees and fines.
“Although our holding resolves the orders in this case, we urge the Legislature to review the issues surrounding court-ordered payments in criminal cases and to address them in a more comprehensive manner,” wrote Society for Justice Carol A. Corrigan.
