Noiiee: Tlu's opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the
Atlantie end Mar_})land Reporiers. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the
Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound
volumes go fo press.
DlSTRlCT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS
NO. lb-C`M-l.'ll‘)
FlL
GILBERTO L.or>Ez-RAMIRIEZ, APPELLAN'I', D;S§Ef /0“-: `IQ?-/
C d COiUm
_ADDBBIB a
4
V.
UNITED S'I'A'rlis, AI’I»l§Ll_EL-i_ C!e"k c"'Coun
Appeal from the Superior Cc)urt
Of`the District ofColumbia
(DVM-2363-l4)
(Hc)n. Nea| E. Kravitz, Tria] Judge)
(Argued .lune 27, 2017 Decided October 12, 2017)
Dunie/ S. Harau-‘a, Pub|ic Defender Service, With Whom Scnniu Fum and
A{iee I'Vong, Public Def`ender Service, were 011 the brief, f`er appellant.
Luuren R. Baies, ASSiStant United States Attorney, With Whom C' banning D.
P/)ii/ips, United Stales Attorney at the time the briei` Was filed, and E!i:obef/:
Trosn-mn, Eli:abeib H. Done//o, and Candiee C. i"Vong, ASSiStanl Unit€d Stat€$
Attc)rneys, were 0r1 the brief". for appellee
Bei`ore FISHER and BECKW|'I‘H, Assoc:'ore Jndge.s‘, and NI:BEI 139 (defining “assessment" as the
“[i]mposition of sorriething1 such as a tax or fine . . . ; the tax or fine so imposed").
“‘ The majority notes that the VVCCA assessment is "imposed ‘[i]n addition
to and separate from punishment imposed."" xlnte at 8 (quoting D.C. Code § 4-516
(a)) (alteration in origina|). T`his language reflects the D.C. Council`s intent that
the VVCCA assessment be imposed as an additional cost and that it not merge
into the line for the offense imposed pursuant to D.C. Code § 22-3571.01 or other
statute The fines of an individual convicted ol"a ninety-day misdemeanor could
thus be up to 81,250: the 51,000 maximum set forth in D.C. Code § 22-3571.01
(b)(4) plus the 8250 maximum VVCCA assessment The fines would not be
capped at $1,000 with 550 to 5250 ofthat going towards the VVCCA assessment
" The majority says that "[t]his language would be unnecessary if the
Council otherwise equated *assessments` with ‘fines."’ Ante at 9. But “laws often
make explicit what might already have been implicit `for greater caution` and in
order “to leave nothing to construction."` lining i'. Unitecl Pareel Serv.. lnc.. 135
(continued...)
25
defendant . . . to sanctions provided pursuant to § 16-706," i`cl. Tliat provision
states in turn that "the court may, in the event ofdefault in the payment of the line
imposed, commit the defendant for a temi not to exceed one year." D.C. Code
§ 16-706.
The VVCCA assessment is a “fine” or “pena|ty" as those terms are
commonly understood because it is "imposed as punishment for a crime" or is a
burden ““annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime."
l-l"el)stei"s Tlu`rrl Neir lnternational Dic'tionruji' 852. 1668. The VVCCA
assessment shares the typical characteristics of a punishment lt is necessarily
imposed following conviction as part ofthe sentence in this case it was included
in the written judgment of l\/lr. l.opez-Ramirez`s sentence"'-- --and it cannot be
imposed on a person who has not been convicted of an offense See D.C. Code
§4-516 (a). The trial court has discretion within a range to decide how high an
(...continued)
S. Ct. 1338, 1363 (2015) (Scalia, l., dissenting) (quoting The Federa|ist 1\10. 33, pp.
205 206 (.l. Cool