Monthly Archives: August 2026

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000630

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was error for the court to impose a no contact order under section 1202.05, because the victim was an adult. The trial court was required, however, to consider whether to issue a protective order under section 136.2(i)(1). We accordingly remand the matter for the trial court to do so. In addition, the abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that the restitution fine was stayed, and to reflect the actual date of sentencing. Also, the minute order fails to reflect the true finding of aggravating circumstances on one of the counts.

First Holding:

Section 1202.05 provides that if a defendant receives a prison sentence for certain sexual offenses against a victim who is a child under the age of 18 years, the court shall prohibit all visitation between the defendant and the child victim. The restrictions on visitation imposed by the provision apply only to victims who are under the age of 18 at the time of the contemplated visitation. Section 136.2(i)(1) does provide authority for the court to impose a protective order.

Although the trial court acknowledged the victim’s status as an adult when it issued the order, there is nothing in the record to show that the trial court contemplated issuing the no-contact order under section 136.2(i)(1). Moreover, the no-contact order issued by the court did not conform to the requirements of section 136.2(i)(1). Section 136.2(i)(1) provides in part that, when a criminal defendant has been convicted of a crime that requires the defendant to register pursuant to section 290(c), the court, at the time of sentencing, shall consider issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with a victim of the crime.

Authority:

PEN 1202.05

PEN 136.2(i)(1)

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1323

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains clerical errors that should be corrected. At sentencing, the court imposed but stayed a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b). The abstract of judgment reflects that the fine was imposed but not that it was stayed. I

n addition, the abstract incorrectly indicates that the defendant was sentenced more than a month after the date he was actually sentenced. We accordingly direct the trial court to amend the abstract to make these corrections. In addition, the sentencing minute order should be corrected to accurately reflect the sentence orally pronounced.

The corrected minute order from the bifurcated proceeding at which the trial court found the aggravating circumstances true does not reflect that the court found those circumstances true as to one of the counts.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-188

People v. Wynn (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1221

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000629

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the superior court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b), that is no longer enforceable or collectible, and it imposed additional fines and fees that were not originally imposed and which came into effect after the defendant’s original sentencing. We modify the judgment by vacating the challenged fines and fees.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature enacted SB (Stats. 2021 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), retroactively invalidating prison prior enhancements imposed pursuant to section 667.5(b), except those that were based on a conviction for a sexually violent offense. Once the court verifies that the current judgment includes such a sentencing enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Resentencing under section 1172.75 is not limited to striking the section 667.5(b), enhancement. Rather, the court must conduct a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 368, 373

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 348, fn. 5

People v. Gray (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 148, 163

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 381

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855

Second Holding:

Our review of the imposition of fines and fees is de novo.

Authority:

People v. Arroyo (2016) 62 Cal.4th 589, 593 [de novo review in cases of statutory interpretation]

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 983 [authority of trial court to impose fine or fees turns on relevant statutory provisions and presents essentially an issue of law]

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to add subdivision (d), which provides that, on the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. The defendant was resentenced in November 2024, weeks before the effective date of the amendment. But the amendment applies retroactively to his sentence. The section 1202.4 restitution fine, which was imposed over 10 years ago in 2003, must therefore be vacated.

Authority:

PC 1465.9

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [absent evidence to the contrary, we presume ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to all nonfinal judgments]

Fourth Holding:

The statute authorizing the remaining fines and fees did not become effective until after the defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the superior court was not authorized to impose these fines and fees on resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754

People v. Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1414

People v. Hayes (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1260, 1274 [A new statute is generally presumed to operate prospectively absent an express declaration of retroactivity or a clear and compelling implication that the Legislature intended otherwise]

Abstracts and Minutes

Case 000628

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

GARY note: This is not a winning issue case, but is an example of an error in an abstract of judgment in which the abstract reflected a conviction less serious than actually sustained. While I doubt it was helpful to the defendant in this instance, I think it still provides yet another lesson in the importance of reviewing abstracts of judgment.

Holding:

The trial court’s minutes and abstract of judgment erroneously reflect that the defendant was convicted and sentenced on count 5 for the dismissed charge of false imprisonment by violence. The record indicates that the trial court struck the false imprisonment charge before trial and that the defendant was charged with and convicted of forcible rape in count 5, and that he was sentenced accordingly. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect a conviction of rape by force or fear on count 5.

Authority:

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471

Immigration, Standard of review

Case 000627

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant appeals the trial court’s denial of his motion to vacate a conviction pursuant to section 1473.7. We reverse and remand with instructions for the trial court to enter an order granting the motion.

First Holding:

Section 1473.7 allows noncitizens who have served their sentences to vacate their convictions if they can establish that their convictions are invalid due to prejudicial error impairing their ability to meaningfully understand, defend against, or knowingly accept the actual or potential immigration consequences of their conviction. To show prejudicial error, the noncitizen must demonstrate a reasonable probability that the noncitizen would have rejected the plea if the noncitizen had correctly understood the immigration consequences.

Authority:

PEN 1473.7

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316

Second Holding:

In making this determination, we consider the totality of the circumstances. Those circumstances include the noncitizen’s ties to the United States, the importance the noncitizen placed on avoiding deportation, the noncitizen’s priorities in negotiating a plea bargain, and whether the noncitizen had reason to believe an immigration-neutral disposition was available. However, this list is not exhaustive, and no single type of evidence is necessary for relief. Any assertions by the noncitizen must be corroborated with objective evidence. Objective evidence can include facts in declarations, contemporaneous documentation of the noncitizen’s immigration concerns, and the charges the noncitizen faced.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 316, 320-321

Third Holding:

We review independently whether noncitizens have demonstrated a reasonable probability they would have rejected a plea offer had they understood its immigration consequences. Where the trial court has based its rulings on a cold record, or, in other words, only documentary evidence, we need not defer to trial court fact finding.

Authority:

People v. Espinoza (2023) 14 Cal.5th 311, 319

Fourth Holding:

The noncitizen’s subjective misunderstanding qualifies as sufficient error under the statute. The focus is on noncitizen’s own error in not understanding the plea would subject him to mandatory deportation and permanent exclusion.

Authority:

People v. Manzanilla (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 891, 909–910

Fifth Holding:

There is a critical difference between being notified the plea may have immigration consequences and being told the plea will make one immediately deportable. When a noncitizen receives only the first advisement in a situation calling for the second, the advisement is insufficient. A failure to advise of certain immigration consequences of plea rendered representation constitutionally deficient

Authority:

People v. Vivar (2021) 11 Cal.5th 510, 523, 533

Sixth Holding:

Deep, lifelong ties to United States is compelling evidence a noncitizen would reject plea leading to mandatory deportation. This desire is particularly strong where the noncitizen is an asylee. In addition to facing disruption of the most important relationships in the noncitizen’s life, an asylee must also fear returning to a place the asylee has an adjudicated reason to fear.

Authority:

People v. Rodriguez (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 301, 325

People v. Padron (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 950, 963

Sentencing

Case 000626

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

We vacate one of the three prior serious felony conviction enhancements, because it was not brought and tried separately from one of the others.

Holding:

Section 667 (a)(1) provides in relevant part that a person convicted of a serious felony who previously has been convicted of a serious felony in this state or of any offense committed in another jurisdiction that includes all of the elements of any serious felony, shall receive, in addition to the sentence imposed by the court for the present offense, a five-year enhancement for each such prior conviction on charges brought and tried separately.

The phrase “brought and tried separately” means that the underlying charges were formally distinct, from filing to adjudication of guilt. Because the evidence presented does not show that the two prior convictions that took place on the same day in 1990 in the same county were brought and tried separately, we vacate the prior serious felony enhancements based on the second conviction that the defendant admitted suffering.

Authority:

PEN 667(a)

People v. Wiley (1995) 9 Cal.4th 580, 593-595

In re Harris (1989) 49 Cal.3d 131, 136