People v. King CA4/1

California Court of Appeal · D077127 · 2020-09-17 · Unpublished

Proceeding: appeal from a judgment
Trial court: Superior Court of San Diego County · No. SCD277233
Trial judge: Eugenia A. Eyherabide
Outcome: modified — Affirmed as modified with directions.
Area: criminal
Panel: Richard D. Huffman, Sr. (author), Cynthia Aaron, Patricia D. Benke

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T05:23Z · confidence high

The trial court sentenced the defendant to 10 years in prison and imposed a $10,000 restitution fine and various fees without conducting an ability-to-pay hearing, and imposed a concurrent sentence on count 9. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment as modified to stay the sentence on count 9 under Penal Code section 654, but affirmed the imposition of fines and fees because the defendant forfeited the challenge by failing to object at trial.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of $10,000 restitution fine and fees/assessments without an ability-to-pay hearing “We decline to reach the merits of King’s Dueñas challenge as we find the issue has been forfeited.”	unclear	error	agree with court The appellate court held that the defendant forfeited the claim by failing to object in the trial court, citing the well-established doctrine that issues must be raised below to preserve them for appeal. The court reasoned that because the Dueñas decision was published nearly a year before sentencing, the defense was aware of the legal requirement, and thus there was no basis to excuse the failure to object or to review the issue on a cold record. This aligns with standard California appellate procedure regarding forfeiture of non-constitutional claims not raised in the trial court.
Concurrent sentence on count 9 (false imprisonment by violence) “The People correctly agree with King that the sentence on count 9 must be stayed under section 654.”	de novo	error	agree with court The appellate court accepted the People's concession that the sentence on count 9 should be stayed under Penal Code section 654, which prohibits multiple punishments for the same act. Since the People conceded the error and the court modified the judgment accordingly, the legal application is correct and consistent with the statute.

Authorities

relied: People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 — Mandates an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing fines and fees.
relied: People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198 — Establishes the doctrine of forfeiture on appeal for issues not raised in the trial court.
relied: People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 — Supports the doctrine of forfeiture on appeal.
relied: People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228 — Supports the doctrine of forfeiture on appeal.
relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy for ineffective assistance of counsel claims where the record is silent.

The appellate opinion: sound — The opinion is sound because it correctly applies the well-established forfeiture doctrine to a non-constitutional claim that was not raised in the trial court, citing appropriate authorities. It also correctly modifies the judgment to stay the sentence on count 9 based on the People's concession under Penal Code section 654.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

A model's reading — claude-fable-5-1, prompt v1, 2026-10-13T04:30Z · confidence low

The San Diego Superior Court sentenced King to 10 years in prison after a jury convicted him of false imprisonment by violence, corporal injury to a spouse, and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (plus a plea to a further assault count), imposing a concurrent term on the false imprisonment count and a $10,000 restitution fine with other fees without objection. The Court of Appeal held King forfeited his Dueñas ability-to-pay challenge by failing to object at a sentencing held a year after Dueñas was decided, accepted the People's concession that the count 9 sentence must be stayed under section 654, and affirmed the judgment as modified.

Ruling reviewed	Standard	The court	The model
Imposition of $10,000 restitution fine and other fees and assessments without an ability-to-pay hearing (Dueñas challenge) “We decline to reach the merits of King’s Dueñas challenge as we find the issue has been forfeited.”	de novo	not reached	agree with court Forfeiture is properly applied: Dueñas was filed January 8, 2019, sentencing occurred January 10, 2020, the probation report listed the proposed fines, and defense counsel had every opportunity to object. The court's reliance on Nelson, McCullough and Welch for the general forfeiture rule is apt, and the court correctly routed any ineffective-assistance theory to habeas under Mendoza Tello given the silent record. An additional unstated ground supports the result: the $10,000 fine exceeds the statutory minimum, so inability to pay was already a cognizable objection under section 1202.4 even before Dueñas (as Gutierrez, cited in a footnote, holds).
Imposition of a concurrent (unstayed) sentence on count 9 (false imprisonment) rather than staying it under section 654 “The People correctly agree with King that the sentence on count 9 must be stayed under section 654.”	unclear	error (law misapplied)	agree with court The facts recited show count 8 (corporal injury) and count 9 (false imprisonment) arose from the single May 5, 2018 episode in the car, where King strangled W.K. and grabbed her to prevent her from leaving, which supports a finding of one indivisible course of conduct with a single objective. The result is consistent with section 654, but the court simply accepted the People's concession without independent analysis or citation of authority, which is a gap because an appellate court is not bound by a concession on a question of law.

Authorities

relied: People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 — Due process requires an ability-to-pay determination before imposing certain fines, fees and assessments; the basis of appellant's challenge, which the court declined to reach on forfeiture grounds.
relied: People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198 — Issues not raised in the trial court are forfeited on appeal.
relied: People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589 — A defendant who fails to object to a fee or fine on ability-to-pay grounds at sentencing forfeits the claim on appeal.
relied: People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228 — Sentencing-related objections must be raised in the trial court to preserve them for appeal.
relied: People v. Gutierrez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1027 — Failure to object to a restitution fine above the statutory minimum forfeits a Dueñas ability-to-pay challenge.
relied: People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126 — Dueñas-based challenges are forfeited absent objection in the trial court.
relied: People v. Bipialaka (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 455 — Dueñas-based challenges are forfeited absent objection in the trial court.
relied: People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264 — Where the record is silent as to counsel's reasons, ineffective-assistance claims are more appropriately raised by habeas corpus than on direct appeal.

The appellate opinion: sound with gaps — The forfeiture holding is well supported: sentencing occurred a year after Dueñas, the proposed fines were disclosed in the probation report, and the court properly cites controlling Supreme Court forfeiture authority and the habeas remedy for silent-record ineffective-assistance claims. The section 654 modification reaches a result the recited facts support, but the court accepts the People's concession without any independent analysis or authority, leaving a gap in the opinion.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

Opinion

Filed 9/17/20 P. v. King CA4/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D077127

Plaintiff and Respondent, v. (Super. Ct. No. SCD277233)

AARON SINCLAIR KING,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Eugenia A. Eyherabide, Judge. Affirmed as modified with directions. John L. Staley, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Xavier Becerra, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Marvin E. Mizell, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. A jury convicted Aaron Sinclair King of false imprisonment by violence (Pen. Code,1 §§ 236 and 237, subd. (a); count 9); corporal injury to a spouse (§ 273.5, subd. (a); counts 8 and 11); and assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury (§ 245, subd. (a)(4); count 10). The court declared a mistrial as to counts 1 through 7. Prior to sentencing, the parties reached a plea agreement as to count 6 (assault with force likely to cause great bodily injury). King pleaded guilty to that count, and the People dismissed the balance of the information. The court sentenced King to a determinate term of 10 years in prison. The court, without objection, imposed a $10,000 restitution fine and various other fees and assessments as recommended in the probation officer’s report. King appeals contending the court erred in imposing fines, fees, and assessments without first conducting an ability to pay hearing as mandated by People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (Dueñas). He also contends the concurrent sentence on count 9 should be stayed under section 654. The People contend King has forfeited his Dueñas challenge for failure to object in the trial court. The People correctly agree with King that the sentence on count 9 must be stayed under section 654. We will accept the People’s concession as to count 9 and will order the judgment modified accordingly. We also agree with the People that King has forfeited the Dueñas challenge as we will explain below.

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 STATEMENT OF FACTS2 King does not challenge the admissibility or the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Therefore, we will adopt the summary of the facts contained in the respondent’s brief for background. A. Count 6: Assault by Means of Force Likely to Cause Great Bodily Injury On December 31, 2017, W.K. and King, her husband, were sitting on the couch alone in their apartment. They argued about a woman that W.K. had seen King staring at in a sexually suggestive manner earlier that year. W.K. stood up, grabbed a hand massager off a table, and threw it on the floor in frustration. King grabbed W.K. by the neck with both hands and pushed her on the couch. King then dragged W.K. by the neck around the apartment while continuing to strangle her. W.K. could not breathe, lost consciousness, and woke up on the floor with her body shaking and her ears ringing. W.K. got up and King again used both hands to choke her before eventually letting go. W.K. could not work for three or four days because she suffered extreme neck pain, difficulty swallowing, and dizzy spells. B. Counts 8 and 9: Corporal Injury on a Spouse Resulting in a Traumatic Condition and False Imprisonment On May 5, 2018, King picked W.K. up from work in their car. King and W.K. were almost to their apartment when W.K.’s suspicion that King was cheating on her with a woman at their church led to an argument. King grabbed W.K. by the neck with his right hand while continuing to drive the car with his left hand. Fearing she would die if she stayed in the car, W.K. opened her door to get out, even though it was still moving. King profanely 2 The facts from counts 1 through 5 and 7 are excluded because King was not convicted of those counts. The facts from counts 10 and 11 are excluded because they are not relevant to the issue on appeal. 3 yelled at W.K. to close the door before he ended up going to jail. King then pulled the car over, yanked W.K. into his lap, and began to strangle her. W.K. could not breathe until King eventually let go. W.K. tried to get out of the car and King reached over and grabbed her shirt, causing a deep scratch to her back. W.K. broke free and ran to a nearby 7-Eleven. W.K.’s deep scratch took three weeks to heal. DISCUSSION King contends the court erred and denied him due process by failing to conduct an ability to pay hearing before imposing fines, fees, and assessments as part of the judgment citing Dueñas, supra, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157. Although there was no objection made to the imposition of the fines, fees and assessments at trial, he contends we should not apply forfeiture to this issue. We disagree. The Dueñas opinion was filed January 8, 2019. The sentencing hearing in this case did not take place until January 10, 2020. Thus, the existence of the case and the legal disputes arising from the opinion were well known and part of a growing body of appellate opinion.3 The doctrine of forfeiture on appeal where issues were not raised in the trial court is well established. (People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227; People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 596-597; People v. Welch (1993) 5 Cal.4th 228, 237.) It is based on the notion that issues should be raised in the trial court before presenting them on appeal. Prompt presentation of the issue may resolve the problem before appeal, and in any event, prompt 3 Some of the cases applying forfeiture include People v. Gutierrez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1027; People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126, 1154- 1155; People v. Bipialaka (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 455, 464. There are other cases that did not apply forfeiture. 4 presentation will provide a record that will permit meaningful appellate review. In this case, the probation officer’s report contained the proposed list of fines, fees, and assessments the court ultimately imposed. The defense was made aware of the potential financial aspects of the judgment and the Dueñas case as well as the appellate disputes arising from that case had existed for almost a year prior to the sentencing hearing. We see no rational reason to address the Dueñas challenge on this cold record. Appellate counsel makes a passing comment that addressing the issue would avoid a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding. Of course, we would still have no record on which to rationally analyze the trial court’s decision. Where there is a silent record it is often impossible to assess claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. In such cases habeas corpus is the appropriate remedy. (People v. Mendoza Tello (1997) 15 Cal.4th 264, 266-267.) We decline to reach the merits of King’s Dueñas challenge as we find the issue has been forfeited. DISPOSITION The judgment is modified to stay the sentence for count 9 pursuant to section 654. The court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly and forward the amended abstract to the Department of 5 Corrections and Rehabilitation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.

HUFFMAN, J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, Acting P. J.

AARON, J.

Cites, in this corpus

People v. McCullough S192513 · 2013-04-22
People v. Nelson S085193 · 2011-01-20
People v. Mendoza Tello S055184 · 1997-04-17
People v. Welch No. S025387 · 1993-05-27