Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Christopher Scott was charged with first degree robbery after taking luggage from a BART passenger by force in September 2023. Following a series of pretrial proceedings—including a failed Marsden motion, a mistrial granted after counsel declared doubt about his competence, a successful Faretta motion for self-representation, and a denied speedy trial dismissal motion—Scott entered an open plea of no contest to first degree robbery of a transit passenger in June 2025. The trial court sentenced him to six years in state prison (the lower term of three years doubled under the Three Strikes law) and imposed a $300 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, along with $70 in court fees that the court waived after Scott described his financial situation as "Destitute."
Scott's appointed appellate counsel filed a Wende brief identifying no arguable issues and requesting independent record review. After examining the record, the Court of Appeal requested supplemental briefing on People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, which the California Supreme Court decided while this appeal was pending. The court also treated the notice of appeal as timely filed immediately after rendition of judgment, and it noted that although Scott requested a certificate of probable cause, no such certificate appeared in the record, limiting appellate review to postplea issues that do not challenge the validity of the plea.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal held that Scott must be afforded the opportunity to assert an excessive fines objection to the $300 restitution fine in light of Kopp, which established that the excessive fines clauses of the state and federal Constitutions provide the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines such as restitution fines. Although Scott responded "Okay" when the trial court indicated it would impose the minimum restitution fine and waive $70 in other fees, the court concluded that because neither Scott nor the trial court had the benefit of Kopp's reasoning at sentencing, the matter must be remanded to allow Scott to develop a factual record on the relevant considerations: the defendant's culpability, the relationship between the harm and the penalty, penalties imposed in similar statutes, and the defendant's ability to pay.
The court rejected Scott's remaining claims raised in his supplemental brief—including alleged speedy trial violations, ineffective assistance of counsel, and issues related to his Marsden and Faretta motions—because they were in substance challenges to the validity of his plea and thus required a certificate of probable cause that was never issued. The court directed the trial court on remand to consider the People's arguments against finding the fine excessive, along with any other properly presented arguments on the issue.
Key Takeaways
- A restitution fine imposed without consideration of the defendant's ability to pay may be vacated and remanded for an excessive fines analysis when an intervening Supreme Court decision establishes new constitutional protections.
- The failure to obtain a certificate of probable cause forecloses appellate review of claims that challenge the validity of a plea, including pre-plea speedy trial violations and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- A defendant's acquiescence to a restitution fine at sentencing does not necessarily waive the right to challenge it on appeal when the legal landscape changes through new precedent.
- The excessive fines inquiry requires consideration of four factors: culpability, the relationship between harm and penalty, penalties in similar statutes, and ability to pay.
- Even in a Wende appeal where counsel identifies no issues, the appellate court's independent review may identify arguable issues based on intervening changes in the law.
Why It Matters
This decision illustrates how the California Supreme Court's Kopp decision has created a new avenue for challenging restitution fines on excessive fines grounds, even when defendants did not preserve the objection at sentencing. Trial courts must now be prepared to conduct a proportionality analysis considering the defendant's financial circumstances when imposing punitive fines. Because the opinion is not certified for publication, it may not be cited or relied on except as permitted by California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(b).
The ruling also reinforces the strict certificate of probable cause requirement for appealing issues that attack the validity of a plea, serving as a reminder that defendants who plead guilty or no contest generally cannot raise pre-plea constitutional violations on direct appeal without meeting this procedural prerequisite.