NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — A judge at the Newport Beach Harbor Justice Center on Tuesday declined to consider the accused’s financial circumstances when evaluating a plea agreement in a misdemeanor DUI case, despite arguments from the defense that the accused had been unemployed for six months and lacked the ability to pay court-imposed fines and fees.
The accused appeared in court for arraignment to enter a plea to two misdemeanor charges. He was charged in Count One with driving under the influence of alcohol and in Count Two with driving with a blood alcohol content of 0.08% or more. The offenses were allegedly committed Jan. 29.
Judge Susan M. Lee presented the plea agreement to the court, offering a reduced sentence and stating that a guilty plea would resolve the case without the need for a trial. In exchange for a guilty plea, the accused would be placed on three years of informal, unsupervised probation, along with mandatory enrollment in court-ordered programs as a condition of the sentence.
An additional penalty assessment fee of $390 or more would also be imposed through the guilty plea. The fee would include booking credits as prepaid or earned balances that would be applied directly to the assessment.
Deputy Public Defender John Higgins sought to further discuss the penalty charges after the accused accepted the plea bargain by pleading guilty to the two misdemeanor charges. He argued that the accused’s statement of assets should be considered when negotiating the conditions of the plea agreement.
Judge Lee dismissed the argument raised by the public defender, stating that he and the accused could address the matter with the collections office at another time if they wished.
Higgins clarified that the accused needed a reevaluation of the plea agreement that would take his financial ability to pay fines and fees into consideration. He told the court that the accused had no ability to pay because he had been unemployed for the past six months.
The court declined to consider the accused’s financial circumstances as a factor in the plea agreement, reiterating that the judge’s offer included all of the conditions previously listed. Judge Lee further stated that collections would handle the financial aspects of the case and that the specific compliance requirements associated with the sentence were components of the plea agreement to which the accused had agreed.
The sentence remained in effect, placing the accused on three years of probation that included mandatory enrollment in a three-month First Offender Alcohol Program and the Mothers Against Drunk Driving program as a form of diversion aimed at preventing repeat offenses and further prosecution.
The mandatory alcohol program allows the accused to be held accountable for the charges while avoiding higher penalties and addresses the risk factors that contributed to the offense. Completion of both programs would allow the judge to reduce or even dismiss the charges while helping prevent recidivism after the accused fulfills all court-ordered conditions.
The accused was also instructed by the court to attend Victim Impact Counseling, which provides assistance through individualized resources, including access to support groups and individual therapy. A $15 fine was also imposed as a penalty for the two driving-under-the-influence violations, and the accused was placed on conditional release.
A hearing was set for Aug. 3 to provide proof of enrollment in the First Offender Alcohol Program and attendance in the Mothers Against Drunk Driving program, with completion of all court-ordered conditions required by Dec. 31.
Follow the Vanguard on Social Media – X, Instagram and Facebook. Subscribe the Vanguard News letters. To make a tax-deductible donation, please visit davisvanguard.org/donate or give directly through ActBlue. Your support will ensure that the vital work of the Vanguard continues.
