Does a defendant have a right to appeal against a minimum restitution and criminal conviction assessed without a determination of his ability to pay?

The defendant was properly advised before entering his no contest plea and admitting his prior strike conviction. He understood there was "not a guarantee" the court would grant his Romero motion. The court provided ample reason for denying the motion, including defendant's numerous probation and parole violations, his parole agent's comment that his performance on parole was "horrible," and the fact that he had been caught trying to falsify a drug test while awaiting sentencing. The court did not abuse its discretion in declining to strike the strike and sentencing defendant to the low term, doubled. (People v. Carmony (2004) 33 Cal.4th 367, 373-374, 378-379.)

Courts have reached differing conclusions as to the constitutionality of the restitution fine and assessments that were imposed on defendant without a determination of his ability to pay. (Cf. People v. Dueas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, 1173 (Dueas) [imposition of minimum restitution fine and court operations and criminal conviction assessments without assessing defendant's ability to pay violates due process] with People v. Hicks (2019) 40 Cal.App.5th 320 ["Dueas does more than go beyond its

Page 3