California Civil Liberties Groups Applaud State Supreme Court Decision Wiping Out Fines for Alleged Mexican Mafia Member
California civil liberties groups have praised a recent decision by the state Supreme Court that wiped out hundreds of dollars in fines for a reputed Mexican Mafia member. Advocates say the ruling strengthens protections for indigent defendants in other cases.
“This holding is a meaningful step toward a justice system that does not punish people for poverty,” said Kathryn Eidmann of Public Counsel. Eidmann’s landmark 2019 victory set the stage for Monday’s decision.
The ruling addresses recent judicial efforts to protect California convicts from what Associate Justice Goodwin H. Liu described as the “cascading consequences” of administrative debt.
“While a defendant’s poverty does not make him any less subject to punishment for violating the law, our justice system must not punish a defendant more harshly simply because he is poor,” Liu wrote in his concurrence.
### Background: The Impact of People v. Dueñas
The case comes amid a growing number of legal challenges following *People v. Dueñas*, a 2019 ruling from the state’s appellate division. That decision found that imposing mandatory fines on indigent people violated the 8th Amendment, which prohibits excessive fines, along with cruel and unusual punishment.
Velia Dueñas, the namesake of the case, was a homeless mother with cerebral palsy and two young children. She ended up behind bars and overwhelmed with debt after continuing to drive despite her license being suspended over three unpaid citations she received as a teenager.
### The Case of Jason Hernandez
Jason Hernandez, whose victory Monday reinforces these protections, is described in court filings as a Varrio Fallbrook Locos gang boss and Mexican Mafia “shot caller.” Hernandez was convicted of brutally assaulting a woman who owed him money—stabbing her in the head and neck and breaking multiple bones in her face—and conspiring to kill a man who witnessed the attack.
In 2019, Hernandez was sentenced to 50 years to life in prison and ordered to pay a $10,000 restitution fine to the state’s victim compensation fund, money he told the court he did not have.
California officials argued that being broke was not sufficient reason to reduce Hernandez’s financial obligations.
“He committed a vicious assault during which he personally inflicted great bodily injury,” the state argued in a 2020 brief. “To evade responsibility for that assault he conspired to kill one witness and attempted to dissuade another witness from testifying against him. He committed all these crimes to benefit a criminal gang and he had a long history of prior serious offenses.”
In addition to the restitution fine, Hernandez was assessed numerous administrative fines and fees, including charges for lab testing, a drug program, booking fees, operations assessments, and facilities fees for the court where his case was heard.
### The Supreme Court’s Decision
The high court’s decision vacated hundreds of dollars in administrative fees that Hernandez faced and sent the $10,000 restitution fine back to the lower court for reconsideration.
Such fees have come under intense scrutiny in recent years. Proponents argue they help cover the costs of delivering justice. Critics counter that they plunge convicts into debt and sometimes land them back behind bars simply because they are poor.
Following the *Dueñas* decision, California lawmakers passed a bill that would have required courts to determine whether defendants could afford to pay before imposing many remaining fines—effectively codifying the ruling into state law. However, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the bill in 2019.
“We must tackle the issue of burdensome fines, fees and assessments that disproportionately drag low-income individuals deeper into debt and away from full participation in their communities,” Newsom wrote at the time. “However, I do not believe that requiring a hearing on defendants’ ability to pay is the best approach in every case.”
In response, the legislature voted to eliminate some of the state’s most controversial fees and to nullify others.
### A Patchwork of Legal Interpretations
What followed were conflicting appellate court decisions across California, creating a patchwork of interpretations that the Supreme Court sought to resolve on Monday.
“While today’s ruling adopts a narrower constitutional framework than *Dueñas*, it affirms a core principle our work helped advance: Courts must consider a person’s inability to pay before imposing certain court assessments,” Eidmann said.
Though the decision does not go as far as the bill Newsom vetoed, it grants greater latitude for poor convicts to avoid or challenge fees and fines imposed by the court.
“Although our holding resolves the orders in this particular case, we urge the Legislature to revisit issues surrounding court-ordered ancillary payments in criminal cases and address them in a more comprehensive manner,” Associate Justice Carol A. Corrigan wrote in the opinion.
—
This decision marks an important step toward a more equitable justice system that guards against disproportionately punishing the poor through financial penalties. It also signals a continued legislative and judicial effort to reform court fee assessments in California.
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2025-12-29/california-supreme-court-mexican-mafia-legal-fees