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]