Error and/or relief
Though affirming the trial court’s reimposition of the original sentence (minus the now-invalid enhancements for prior prison terms), it remanded the matter to the trial court to expressly state which fines and fees it was imposing, as it was not clear from the record.
First Holding:
The abstract of judgment lists several fines and fees, some of which are mandatory. The trial court, however, imposed only direct restitution (which is also listed in the abstract). A superior court’s failure to orally impose mandatory fines or assessments results in an unauthorized sentence that the appellate court may correct on appeal. But we do not believe the superior court sufficiently addressed ability to pay. It mentioned ability to pay only in the context of the direct restitution. It sidestepped the issue of ability to pay, treating it as irrelevant to the issue of direct victim restitution. As the court did not orally impose any additional fines or fees, the defendant had no meaningful opportunity to raise his ability to pay with respect to them.
Authority:
People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153–1157
People v. Pack-Ramirez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 851, 859 [ability-to-pay principles have not been extended to a victim restitution payment under section 1202.4(f)]
People v. Abrahamian (2020) 45 Cal.App.5th 314, 338
People v. Evans (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 771, 777
Second Holding:
By statute, restitution fines and probation restitution fines under section 1202.4(b) and section 1202.45 that exceed the $300 minimum shall account for ability to pay. And because of equal protection principles, a court must consider ability to pay before imposing ancillary assessments under section 1465.8(a)(1) and Government Code section 70373. As to the remaining fine in the defendant’s case, under section 1202.5, the parties do not dispute the fine must be set with ability to pay in mind, but is mandatory if affordable. Given this, we will order a limited remand for the superior court to consider the mandatory fines and assessments omitted from its oral sentencing pronouncements in connection with defendant’s ability to pay.
Authority:
PEN 1202.5
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30
Third Holding:
Regarding restitution fines, section 1465.9 has recently been amended to provide that, upon 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. At least one Court of Appeal has held a court conducting a section 1172.75 resentencing cannot reimpose a restitution fine that is more than 10 years old and has held, instead, the fine should be stricken. As no restitution fine has been properly imposed, we are in no position to consider striking it, and the superior court can consider these developments on remand.
Authority:
PEN 1465.9(d)
People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038
Fourth Holding:
Walker approved Court of Appeal decisions that viewed section 1385 as calling for holistic balancing with special emphasis on the enumerated mitigating factors. Gonzalez did not create a new rule of law, but rather corrected a superior court’s misunderstanding regarding the term endangerment to public safety in section 1385(c)(2). The statute defines the term as a likelihood that the dismissal of the enhancement would result in physical injury or other serious danger to others, which does not contemplate a laser-like focus on dangerousness at the time of sentencing. The superior court in Gonzalez had expressly limited its consideration to the defendant’s current dangerousness despite the call of the statute, a mistake not present here.
Authority:
PEN 1385(c)(2)
People v. Walker (2024) 16 Cal.5th 1024, 1036
People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 228
Fifth Holding:
We need not, and typically do not, address arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.
Authority:
People v. Dunn (2025) 18 Cal.5th 129, 183, fn. 13
People v. Adir Internat., LLC (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 275, 298