How have courts interpreted section 1202.4 of the California Criminal Code when determining whether a defendant has the ability to pay a restitution fine?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Gutierrez, E063158 (Cal. App. 2015):
Similar to this case, in People v. Romero (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 440, 443, 447, the defendant contended that his restitution fine was erroneously imposed because the record contained insufficient evidence of his ability to pay. The appellate court held, "[S]ection 1202.4 also provides, 'A defendant shall bear the burden of demonstrating lack of his . . . ability to pay.' This express statutory command makes sense only if the statute is construed to contain an implied rebuttable presumption, affecting the burden of proof, that a defendant has the ability to pay a restitution fine. . . . The statute thus impliedly presumes a defendant has the ability to pay and expressly places the burden on a defendant to prove lack of ability. Where, as here, a defendant adduces no evidence of inability to pay, the trial court should presume ability to pay . . . . Since here [the] defendant's ability to pay was supplied by the implied presumption, the record need not contain evidence of defendant's ability to pay." (Id. at pp. 448-449.)
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
