Filed 7/15/26 P. v. Guevara CA2/4
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE PEOPLE, B345106
(Los Angeles County
Plaintiff and Respondent, Super. Ct. No. 24CJCF02053)
v.
CARLOS GUEVARA,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from judgment of the Superior Court of Los
Angeles County, Gustavo N. Sztraicher. Dismissed.
Lise M. Breakey, under appointment by the Court of
Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Charles C. Ragland, Chief
Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, and Gary A. Lieberman, Deputy
Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
INTRODUCTION
Following his conviction for two counts of battery causing
serious bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 243, subd. (d)),1 defendant
Carlos Guevara was sentenced to five years imprisonment. He
was also ordered to pay $14,100 in victim restitution (§ 1202.4,
subd. (f)) and the following fines and costs: (1) a $400 restitution
fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)); (2) a stayed parole revocation fine in the
same amount (§ 1202.45, subd. (a)); (3) a $60 court facilities
assessment (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)); and (4) a $80 court
operations assessment (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)).
Defendant appeals from the judgment on the sole basis the
restitution fine, parole revocation fine, and other “ancillary costs”
(see People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 11, 14 (Kopp)) were
imposed without an ability-to-pay hearing.2 Recognizing defense
counsel below failed to request one under section 1202.4,
subdivision (d),3 or People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157
(Dueñas), disapproved in part by Kopp while this appeal was
pending, defendant argues counsel rendered ineffective
assistance. He requests an ability-to-pay hearing or reduction of
the fines and costs.
1 All subsequent references to statutes are to the Penal Code.
2 Defendant does not challenge the victim restitution order. (See
§ 1202.4, subd. (g) [“defendant’s inability to pay shall not be a
consideration in determining the amount” of such order].)
3 Absent compelling and extraordinary reasons stated on the
record, the sentencing court must impose a restitution fine no less than
$300 and no greater than $10,000 for defendants convicted of a felony.
(§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) When setting any amount “in excess of the
minimum,” the court must consider various factors, including “the
defendant’s inability to pay, . . .” (§ 1202.4, subd. (d).) The defendant
bears the burden of demonstrating an inability to pay. (Ibid.)
2
DISCUSSION
We must dismiss this appeal. Defendant asserts his
“appeal is authorized by Penal Code section 1237.” Section 1237
states that an appeal may be taken from a final judgment of
conviction “[e]xcept as provided in” section 1237.2, which in turn
provides:
“An appeal may not be taken by the defendant from a
judgment of conviction on the ground of an error in
the imposition or calculation of fines, . . . or costs
unless the defendant first presents the claim in the
trial court at the time of sentencing, or if the error is
not discovered until after sentencing, the defendant
first makes a motion for correction in the trial court,
which may be made informally in writing. The trial
court retains jurisdiction after a notice of appeal has
been filed to correct any error in the imposition or
calculation of fines, . . . or costs upon the defendant’s
request for correction. This section only applies in
cases where the erroneous imposition or calculation
of fines, . . . or costs are the sole issue on appeal.”
This provision “reflects, fundamentally, a concern for
judicial economy” in the correction of fines or costs. (People v.
Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 255.) It is to apply broadly “any
time a defendant claims the trial court wrongly imposed fines,
penalty assessments, surcharges, fees, or costs without having
first presented the claim in the trial court . . . .” (People v. Hall
(2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 502, 504–505 (Hall).) This includes
“‘errors of fact (as in the mathematical calculation)’” as well as
“‘errors of law.’” (People v. Jordan (2018) 21 Cal.App.5th 1136,
1140; compare People v. Jenkins (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 30, 38
[section 1237.2 inapplicable if appeal raises substantive issue
“other than the imposition or calculation of such fines”].)
3
Requests for a “hearing on [the] ability to pay” under Dueñas are
covered by section 1237.2. (Hall, at pp. 504–505.)
This appeal solely challenges the imposition of fines and
costs. The remedy defendant seeks is either a reduction or
“correction” of a fine or cost amount, or an ability-to-pay hearing.
Under section 1237.2, defendant was required to seek this relief
in the trial court before (or during) this single-issue appeal.
Defendant admits this never occurred. Defendant does not show
he filed a motion for correction in the trial court upon discovering
a reduction of fines and costs might be in order as expressly
required by section 1237.2.
Though we must dismiss this appeal, defendant may still
seek recourse. The $14,100 victim restitution order must be paid
before the other restitution fines. (See § 2085.5, subds. (f), (g),
(i).) To the extent defendant seeks to permanently stay these
fines and the ancillary costs “unless and until the People prove
[h]e can pay them, defendant is entitled to request that from the
trial court, and has always had that right under section 1237.2.”
(Hall, supra, 39 Cal.App.5th at p. 505.) Defendant may also raise
an ineffective assistance claim “by way of a petition for habeas
corpus.” (People v. Keene (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 861, 864–865; see
also People v. Mai (2013) 57 Cal.4th 986, 1009 [such claim is
“more appropriately resolved in a habeas corpus proceeding”].)
4
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed without prejudice to defendant
requesting a correction in the trial court or filing a habeas
petition on the basis of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
MORI, J.
We concur:
ZUKIN, P. J.
COGLIATI, J. **
** Judge of the Santa Cruz County Superior Court, assigned by the
Chief Justice pursuant to Article VI, section 6, of the California
Constitution.
5