Full Opinion

Filed 11/12/26 P. v. Neal CA1/1 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, A173222 v. (Contra Costa County Super. LARRY DARYL NEAL, JR., Ct. Nos. 02-24-00110, 01-24-04721) Defendant and Appellant. After a jury convicted appellant Larry Daryl Neal, Jr. of felony firearm possession offenses, the trial court sentenced him to state prison and imposed various fines and fees. On appeal, and in light of new guidance from the California Supreme Court, the parties agree the case should be remanded to allow Neal the opportunity to have the trial court consider his ability to pay the fines and fees. We will reverse those orders, remand the matter for an ability-to-pay determination, and affirm the balance of the judgment. I. BACKGROUND A first amended information charged Neal with three felony offenses, a bail enhancement, prior convictions, and aggravated circumstances. It consolidated two separate criminal cases: 01-24-04721 and 02-24-00110. Counts One and Two charged Neal with being a felon in possession of a 1 firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a)(1))1 and carrying a loaded unregistered handgun (§ 25850, subd. (a)), respectively. They correspond to the firearm found in Neal’s vehicle after a police chase in January 2024. Count Three (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1)) stems from a later incident in December 2024 while Neal was driving his daughter. As the second incident occurred when Neal was out of custody on bail as a result of the January incident, Count Three included a bail enhancement. (§ 12022.1.) The court decided various in limine motions that, among other things, excluded information about a shooting and allowed evidence concerning a child custody dispute and the discovery of a shell casing in Neal’s automobile. A. Counts One and Two: January 2024 Firearm Possession At high speed, Neal fled from a Richmond Police Department officer who attempted a traffic stop for expired vehicle registration. Neal ran a red light, hit another car, lost control, and came to rest on top of some bushes. Neal started to flee on foot but was apprehended near his car. A search discovered a loaded firearm behind the front passenger seat in a position that could have been easily reached by Neal. The firearm did not have a serial number and the “AFS system” showed no firearms registered to Neal. B. Count Three: December 2024 Firearm Possession Neal’s seven-year-old daughter, L.N., testified that her mother and father sometimes do not get along. On December 23rd, Neal drove L.N. around with two other women. One woman sat in the front passenger seat; the other sat in the seat behind her. L.N. sat behind her father. At some point, L.N. saw her father hide a black gun under the passenger seat. Later, 1 All undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 2 when Pleasant Hill police contacted the vehicle, only Neal and L.N. remained inside. L.N. recalled that when the police later asked her questions, her mother “shushed” her and told her not to answer. (Boldface omitted.) Her mother did not tell her what to say and did not tell her to report that a gun was in the car. Before trial, her mother had not talked to her about what happened but told her to tell the truth in court. The vehicle was towed to the police department by flatbed truck and searched. Detective Stephen Vuong found a spent casing on the front passenger-side floorboard. After moving the front passenger seat, he found a black and green handgun underneath it. The firearm was loaded with a live round in its chamber and a magazine capable of holding nine-millimeter rounds. The gun appeared real and capable of being fired. It did not have a serial number on it. Neal did not present any evidence during the defense case. C. Jury Verdict and Sentencing Neal argued to undermine witness credibility and suggest reasons he might not have had knowledge of firearms in the car, but the jury ultimately found him guilty of all counts. Individual jurors confirmed the verdicts when polled. The parties waived jury trial on the bail enhancement, aggravating circumstances, and three prior felony convictions including the “strike” prior adjudication for second-degree robbery, which the court found true beyond a reasonable doubt. At the sentencing hearing, Neal, his grandmother, and his father spoke. The court explained the evidence it reviewed, its prior findings and the jury’s verdict, and provided a brief explanation of the objectives for sentencing. It denied Neal’s request to dismiss the “strike prior” and the bail 3 enhancement, finding that to do so would not be “in furtherance of justice” and that “dismissal of the enhancement would endanger public safety” and likely “result in physical injury or other serious danger to others.” It found Neal ineligible for probation. Aggravated circumstances pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 4.421(b)—that Neal had served a prior term in prison or county jail under section 1170, subdivision (h), and that his prior convictions as an adult or sustained petitions in juvenile delinquency proceedings were numerous or of increasing seriousness—were also found true. (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 4.421(b)(2), (b)(3).) The court imposed a prison term of seven years and four months. The trial court also ordered Neal to pay: (1) a $5,000 restitution fine; (2) a stayed $5,000 parole revocation fine; (3) an $80 conviction assessment fee; and (4) a $60 court operation assessment fee. At the conclusion of the hearing, defense counsel claimed his client was unable to pay: “. . . Mr. Neal is incapable of paying any fines and fees at this point in time. He has . . . been in custody since December, and has no money at his disposal to pay for any of the fines and fees.” The trial court responded that its “findings and orders [would] stand.” The abstract of judgment reflects the fines and fees imposed by the trial court. On appeal, appellate counsel filed a brief following the procedures set forth in People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and Anders v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 738. II. DISCUSSION A. Remand to Address Restitution Our Wende review noticed that eight months after Neal was sentenced, the California Supreme Court decided People v. Kopp (2025) 4 19 Cal.5th 1(Kopp), a case that “resolve[d] a divergence among the Courts of Appeal regarding court-ordered financial obligations imposed on criminal defendants.” (Kopp, at pp. 9, 22; U.S. Const., 8th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 17.) Among other issues, Kopp decided “that, in addition to the statutory obligation to consider a defendant's inability to pay when imposing a restitution fine above the minimum amount, an ‘excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is [also a] proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines.’ ” (People v. Gutierrez (2026) 118 Cal.App.5th 622, 643; Kopp, at p. 23; U.S. Const., 8th Amend.; Cal. Const., art. I, § 17.) After we requested supplemental briefing, the parties agreed that remand is appropriate to afford Neal the opportunity to obtain “ability to pay” determinations concerning the assessments and fees he was ordered to pay, as well as the amounts imposed as restitution and parole revocation fines. We agree with the parties that remand is appropriate. At the sentencing hearing, Neal objected to “any fines and fees[,]” claiming he was unable to pay them. The trial court summarily denied the request without explanation. We are thus left with a record that provides no basis upon which we can conclude that correct legal standards were followed. On remand, Neal may challenge his court-imposed financial obligations (e.g. the $80 court operations assessment fee, the $60 Court facilities assessment fee, and $5,000 fines for restitution and parole revocation) to try to avail himself of some benefit from Kopp’s analysis. B. No Other Arguable Issues As requested by Neal, this court conducted an independent review of the record to identify other arguable issues for appeal. (People v. Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436; Anders v. California, supra, 386 U.S. 738.) In this Wende review process, Neal was advised of his counsel’s actions. He was 5 provided with a copy of his attorney’s brief and the record on appeal. Additionally, Neal was informed that he may personally file his own supplemental brief to raise the points he would like this court to consider. Neal did not file a supplemental brief. Lastly, we observe that the Wende brief directed this court to one possible issue for review: “whether the trial court erred by denying the defense request for an additional peremptory challenge.” But having reviewed the entire record, we see no arguable issues for appeal beyond those necessitating the remand we discuss above. III. DISPOSITION The portion of the judgment concerning the imposition of court-ordered payments of fines and fees is vacated and the case is remanded for the trial court to conduct an ability-to-pay hearing concerning those fines and fees. Neal may further challenge the restitution fine as excessive consistent with the new guidance provided by Kopp. We affirm the judgment in all other respects. 6 _________________________ SMILEY, J. WE CONCUR: _________________________ BANKE, Acting P. J. _________________________ LANGHORNE WILSON, J. People v. Neal / A173222 7