defendant advances claim in California

2022(People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1056 [concluding trial court could lawfully impose $10,000 restitution fine despite condemned inmate’s categorical ineligibility to earn prison wages and his receipt of only occasional small gifts of money from family, and rejecting argument ‘that a fine is automatically invalid if a defendant is unable to pay it’].)” (Ibid.) The majority concludes that any error is harmless, and “there is authority supporting the proposition that prisoners are able to pay fines, fees and assessments out of future prison wages (People v. Santos [(2019)] 38 Cal.App.

2022(People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1056 [concluding trial court could lawfully impose $10,000 restitution fine despite condemned inmate’s categorical ineligibility to earn prison wages and his receipt of only occasional small gifts of money from family, and rejecting argument ‘that a fine is automatically invalid if a defendant is unable to pay it’].)” (Ibid.) The majority concludes that any error is harmless, and “there is authority supporting the proposition that prisoners are able to pay fines, fees and assessments out of future prison wages (People v. Santos [(2019)] 38 Cal.App.

2022(People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1056 [concluding trial court could lawfully impose $10,000 restitution fine despite condemned inmate’s categorical ineligibility to earn prison wages and his receipt of only occasional small gifts of money from family, and rejecting argument ‘that a fine is automatically invalid if a defendant is unable to pay it’].)” (Ibid.) The majority concludes that any error is harmless, and “there is authority supporting the proposition that prisoners are able to pay fines, fees and assessments out of future prison wages (People v. Santos [(2019)] 38 Cal.App.

2021(People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1056 [concluding trial court could lawfully impose $10,000 restitution fine despite condemned inmate’s categorical ineligibility to earn prison wages and his receipt of only occasional small gifts of money from family, and rejecting argument ‘that a fine is automatically invalid if a defendant is unable to pay it’].)” (Ibid.) The majority concludes that any error is harmless, and “there is authority supporting the proposition that prisoners are able to pay fines, fees and assessments out of future prison wages (People v. Santos [(2019)] 38 Cal.App.

2022(People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1056 [concluding trial court could lawfully impose $10,000 restitution fine despite condemned inmate’s categorical ineligibility to earn prison wages and his receipt of only occasional small gifts of money from family, and rejecting argument ‘that a fine is automatically invalid if a defendant is unable to pay it’].)” (Ibid.) The majority concludes that any error is harmless, and “there is authority supporting the proposition that prisoners are able to pay fines, fees and assessments out of future prison wages (People v. Santos [(2019)] 38 Cal.App.

2021(People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1056 [concluding trial court could lawfully impose $10,000 restitution fine despite condemned inmate’s categorical ineligibility to earn prison wages and his receipt of only occasional small gifts of money from family, and rejecting argument ‘that a fine is automatically invalid if a defendant is unable to pay it’].)” (Ibid.) The majority concludes that any error is harmless, and “there is authority supporting the proposition that prisoners are able to pay fines, fees and assessments out of future prison wages (People v. Santos [(2019)] 38 Cal.App.

2022(People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1056 [concluding trial court could lawfully impose $10,000 restitution fine despite condemned inmate’s categorical ineligibility to earn prison wages and his receipt of only occasional small gifts of money from family, and rejecting argument ‘that a fine is automatically invalid if a defendant is unable to pay it’].)” (Ibid.) The majority concludes that any error is harmless, and “there is authority supporting the proposition that prisoners are able to pay fines, fees and assessments out of future prison wages (People v. Santos [(2019)] 38 Cal.App.

2021(People v. Potts (2019) 6 Cal.5th 1012 , 1055–1056 [concluding trial court could lawfully impose $10,000 restitution fine despite condemned inmate’s categorical ineligibility to earn prison wages and his receipt of only occasional small gifts of money from family, and rejecting argument ‘that a fine is automatically invalid if a defendant is unable to pay it’].)” (Ibid.) The majority concludes that any error is harmless, and “there is authority supporting the proposition that prisoners are able to pay fines, fees and assessments out of future prison wages (People v. Santos [(2019)] 38 Cal.App.

2021Remand Appropriate Due to Undeveloped Record As explained in Montes, “[w]here … a defendant advances a claim premised on a significant and unforeseeable development in the law that occurred after sentencing and 9 In light of this determination, we do not consider defendant’s other arguments directed at addressing his failure to object in the trial court: the decision in Dueñas constitutes a clarification of existing law (Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 328 ), the trial court failed to exercise informed discretion under the law (People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1023 ), the

2021Remand Appropriate Due to Undeveloped Record As explained in Montes, “[w]here … a defendant advances a claim premised on a significant and unforeseeable development in the law that occurred after sentencing and 9 In light of this determination, we do not consider defendant’s other arguments directed at addressing his failure to object in the trial court: the decision in Dueñas constitutes a clarification of existing law (Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 328 ), the trial court failed to exercise informed discretion under the law (People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1023 ), the

2021Remand Appropriate Due to Undeveloped Record As explained in Montes, “[w]here … a defendant advances a claim premised on a significant and unforeseeable development in the law that occurred after sentencing and 9 In light of this determination, we do not consider defendant’s other arguments directed at addressing his failure to object in the trial court: the decision in Dueñas constitutes a clarification of existing law (Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 328 ), the trial court failed to exercise informed discretion under the law (People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1023 ), the

2021Remand Appropriate Due to Undeveloped Record As explained in Montes, “[w]here … a defendant advances a claim premised on a significant and unforeseeable development in the law that occurred after sentencing and 9 In light of this determination, we do not consider defendant’s other arguments directed at addressing his failure to object in the trial court: the decision in Dueñas constitutes a clarification of existing law (Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 328 ), the trial court failed to exercise informed discretion under the law (People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1023 ), the

2021Remand Appropriate Due to Undeveloped Record As explained in Montes, “[w]here … a defendant advances a claim premised on a significant and unforeseeable development in the law that occurred after sentencing and 9 In light of this determination, we do not consider defendant’s other arguments directed at addressing his failure to object in the trial court: the decision in Dueñas constitutes a clarification of existing law (Griffith v. Kentucky (1987) 479 U.S. 314, 328 ), the trial court failed to exercise informed discretion under the law (People v. Leon (2016) 243 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1023 ), the

2021Santos (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 923, 934 ; Kopp, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 96 , review granted.) Where, as in this case, a defendant advances a claim premised on a significant and unforeseeable development in the law that occurred after sentencing and during the pendency of the appeal; there was no statutory right to object to the restitution fine and court assessments at issue; and the record is wholly undeveloped on the issue, a limited remand is appropriate to allow the parties to address the issue in the trial court in the first instance.

2021Santos (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 923, 934 ; Kopp, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 96 , review granted.) Where, as in this case, a defendant advances a claim premised on a significant and unforeseeable development in the law that occurred after sentencing and during the pendency of the appeal; there was no statutory right to object to the restitution fine and court assessments at issue; and the record is wholly undeveloped on the issue, a limited remand is appropriate to allow the parties to address the issue in the trial court in the first instance.

2021Santos (2019) 38 Cal.App.5th 923, 934 ; Kopp, supra, 38 Cal.App.5th at p. 96 , review granted.) Where, as in this case, a defendant advances a claim premised on a significant and unforeseeable development in the law that occurred after sentencing and during the pendency of the appeal; there was no statutory right to object to the restitution fine and court assessments at issue; and the record is wholly undeveloped on the issue, a limited remand is appropriate to allow the parties to address the issue in the trial court in the first instance.