Error and/or relief
This is an appeal from a hearing on the petition for resentencing under section 1172.75. Because the trial court did not orally pronounce sentence on defendant’s conviction, impose the mandatory parole revocation fine, or calculate credits for time served, we remand the matter for full resentencing. On remand, the trial court is directed to orally impose judgment; determine what the amount of the restitution fine would have been so it can impose, then stay, the parole revocation fine in a proper amount, and calculate credit for time served.
First Holding:
Our review of the record reveals the court did not orally pronounce judgment. Accordingly, we must remand the matter for a full resentencing. The failure to pronounce sentence on a count is an unauthorized sentence and subject to correction on remand, as is the failure to impose a parole revocation fine required by section 1202.45. Because an unauthorized sentence is a narrow exception to the general requirement that only those claims properly raised and preserved by the parties are reviewable on appeal, we raise the issue even though neither party has addressed it.
Authority:
People v. Price (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 1405, 1411 fn. 6
People v. Terrell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1255
People v. Anderson (2010) 50 Cal.4th 19, 26
Second Holding:
Because the trial court’s recall of defendant’s sentence pursuant to section 1172.75(c) vacated that sentence, the trial court was required to conduct a full resentencing. While the court struck defendant’s now-invalid section 667.5(b) enhancements and ruled on his Romero motion, it did not orally pronounce judgment on defendant for his conviction for possessing cocaine. Nor did it orally reimpose the restitution fine or parole revocation fine or calculate actual custody credits. Because the trial court’s failure to orally pronounce judgment resulted in an unauthorized sentence, we remand for a full resentencing.
Authority:
People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 360-361
Third Holding:
While the term of imprisonment, parole revocation fine, and actual custody credits are nevertheless listed in the minute order and abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement of judgment controls over both.
Authority:
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
Fourth Holding:
A trial court has a duty in both felony and misdemeanor cases to pronounce sentence on every conviction.
Authority:
People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 994
Fifth Holding:
Add Section 1465.9 bars reimposition of the restitution fine upon defendant. Because the restitution fine was originally imposed on defendant more than 10 years ago, the fine is uncollectable and unenforceable by operation of law.
blurb here
Authority:
PEN 1465.9(d)
People v. Bertsch and Hronis (2026) 19 Cal.5th 183, 332
People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601 [resentencing does not restart sec. 1465.9’s 10-year clock], review granted on a different issue Mar. 11, 2026, S295038
Sixth Holding:
Although section 1465.9(d) imposed a 10-year limit on the enforcement and collection of the restitution fine, it did not provide relief with respect to the parole revocation fine. Under section 1202.45 and Kopp that fine remains mandatory and must be set in the same amount as the court would have set for defendant’s restitution fine even though the restitution fine itself may no longer be reimposed.
Authority:
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23-24
Seventh Holding:
Finally, at resentencing, the trial court is required to credit the defendant with all actual days he had spent in custody up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing.
Authority:
PEN 2900.1
People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37