Error and/or relief
On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court reimposed the restitution fine that was ordered at the original sentencing more than 10 years earlier. The restitution fine must be vacated.
First Holding:
Defendant contends the trial court erred by reimposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4(b) because the language of section 1465.9(d) mandates vacating these fines after 10 years. The People disagree and counter defendant’s fines were reimposed at the resentencing hearing, making section 1465.9 inapplicable because 10 years have not elapsed under the statute. We agree with defendant.
Authority:
John v. Superior Court (2016) 63 Cal.4th 91, 95
Second Holding:
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.
Authority:
PEN 1465.9(d)
Third Holding:
Trial courts have jurisdiction to modify every aspect of a sentence at a full resentencing hearing, including fines. Here, at resentencing the trial court confirmed and reimposed all previous terms, conditions, fines and fees, and admonishments provided by the court on the day of defendant’s original sentencing. The court clearly intended to reimpose the original restitution fine and not an additional, new obligation under section 1202.4(b).
Authority:
People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893
People v. Rosas (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 107, 117
People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 34
Fourth Holding:
As in Salstrom, we find no support for the People’s position that this reimposition restarted section 1465.9’s 10-year clock. The plain language of section 1465.9(d) provides legislative intent to eliminate restitution fines under section 1202.4 after 10 years. Allowing trial courts to reimpose a restitution fine under section 1202.4(b) originally imposed more than 10 years prior could render section 1465.9 effectively meaningless for any defendant who is subject to a full resentencing” or is successful on an appeal or a collateral attack.
Authority:
People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600, review granted on another issue March 11, 2026, S295038