Category Archives: Fines and fees

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000797

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment mistakenly reflects that the trial court imposed financial obligations for court operations and conviction assessments and the abstract erroneously indicates the restitution fines were not stayed. It must be corrected.

First Holding:

The trial court stated a compelling reason for staying an otherwise mandatory restitution fine: any income the defendant earned would be better directed toward paying the direct restitution to the victim that the court did order.

Authority:

People v. Mercer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 463, 467 [we draw all inferences in favor of the judgment]

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment shall be corrected to reflect that the trial court stayed the section 1202.4, subdivision (b), restitution fines, and the financial obligations from the court operations and conviction assessments shall be struck. (Gary note: the court cited no authority for ordering the correction of the abstract of judgment, but there are many cases it could have relied on. I have set forth a few below for your convenience.)

Authority:

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

People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070

People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855

In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees

Case 000793

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment contains an error that must be corrected.

Holding:

Our review of the record reveals a discrepancy between the trial court’s oral pronouncement and the abstract of judgment. Specifically, the abstract of judgment indicates that the trial court lifted the stay on the mandatory probation revocation fine of $300 after revoking defendant’s probation. The trial court’s oral pronouncement did not address a probation revocation fine nor lift a stay on a probation revocation fine.

Moreover, a probation revocation fine under section 1202.44 was never imposed in defendant’s probation case. Therefore, there was no probation revocation fine for which a stay could be lifted. When there is a discrepancy between the court’s oral pronouncement and the clerk’s minute order or the abstract of judgment, the record of the oral pronouncement controls.

We have inherent authority to correct errors to accurately reflect the “oral judgments of sentencing courts. Accordingly, we strike the $300 probation revocation fine (sec. 1202.44) included in the abstract of judgment. We order the abstract of judgment corrected to conform to the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

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

Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review, Statutory interpretation

Case 000791

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000778

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was originally sentenced in 2011. On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the trial court should not have reimposed the restitution fine, jail classification fee, and booking fee because they are unenforceable and uncollectible.

First Holding:

The trial court originally imposed the restitution fine in July 2011. Since then, the Legislature amended section 1465.9 to provide that restitution fines under section 1202.4 are uncollectible and unenforceable after 10 years and that the part of the judgment imposing the fine must be vacated.

Because the restitution fine was originally imposed more than 10 years before the trial court resentenced defendant, under section 1465.9(d), the trial court should not have reimposed the restitution fine when it resentenced defendant in 2025.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

The trial court also should not have reimposed the booking fee and jail classification fee under Government Code section 29550.2, because the Legislature repealed that section effective July 1, 2021. After July 1, 2021, the unpaid balance of court-imposed costs under several statutes, including Government Code section 29550.2, are unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.

Authority:

GOV 6111

Eighth Amendment, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000763

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in declining to determine the defendant’s ability to pay fines and fees. Its stated basis was the probation office’s strong stance on rejecting the plea, based on the victim. After sentencing, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kopp.

First Holding:

A defendant may challenge the imposition of a punitive fine under the United States and California Constitutions’ excessive fines provisions. The California Supreme Court The court used the “fine” term to refer to penalties provided by the Legislature to punish a criminal offense and included restitution fines and parole revocation restitution fines within that category. Because its decision was issued after the defendant was sentenced, the defendant should be given the opportunity to develop an excessive fines argument in the first instance on remand.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23, 30-31

Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution [Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted]

Article I, section 17 of the California Constitution [Cruel or unusual punishment may not be inflicted or excessive fines imposed.]

Second Holding:

Because the trial court failed to consider the defendant’s ability to pay the the court operations and court facilities assessments despite his request, we must remand for such consideration. Because there is no rational basis for distinguishing criminal defendants from indigent civil litigants—who are afforded waivers for similar assessments—equal protection principles require the trial court to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing these ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 14-15, 24-31