In this appeal following resentencing under section 1172.75, the restitution fine, now older than 10 years, must be vacated.
Under section 1465.9(d), the restitution fine must be vacated, as it was imposed more than 10 years ago.
PEN 1465.9(d)
In 2025, the trial court resentenced defendant pursuant to section 1172.75—striking the two prior prison term enhancements—and otherwise reimposed the prior judgment from 1996, including a $10,000 restitution fine. The trial court erred by reimposing the restitution fine and it must be vacated.
Section 1465.9(d) provides: “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.” Resentencing does not reset the 10-year expiration of a section 1202.4 restitution fine.
PEN 1465.9(d)
People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601, review granted on other grounds Mar. 11, 2026, S295038
The court should have granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the restitution fine, which was more than 10 years old.
Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (Stats. 2024, ch. 805, sec. 1) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d). The statute now provides: “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.”
PEN 1465.9(d)
Defendant’s restitution fine was effectively vacated when section 1465.9(d) went into effect. The defendant’s motion, however, was filed a few months before the law took effect. For the statute to apply, it is not clear that a motion is even required, as the law declares the fine uncollectible and that any portion of a judgment imposing those fines is to be vacated. In the interests of judicial economy, we will direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the restitution fine has been vacated.
In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1069
On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court should have vacated the restitution fine, as it was more than 10 years old.
Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (Stats. 2024, ch. 805, sec. 1) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d). The statute now provides: “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.” The resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 did not restart section 1465.9’s 10-year clock anew.
PEN 1465.9(d)
People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600, review granted and briefing deferred on a different issue, March 11, 2026, S295038
The defendant was resentenced under section 1172.75. The restitution fine must be vacated, as it is more than 10 years old. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment accurately.
Effective January 1, 2025, the Legislature amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which states: “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.” The fine in this case appears to have been imposed at the original sentencing in 1994, and must be vacated.
PEN 1469.5
Though the abstract of judgment from 1994 does not reflect whether the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum restitution fine under section 1202.4(b), we presume, as the People argue, the court did. Thus, the superior court’s order imposing the restitution fine at the defendant’s resentencing in 2024 essentially reimposed the fine imposed in 1994, which section 1465.9 has now made unenforceable and uncollectible. We construe the superior court’s order as simply reimposing the original restitution fine, and the 10-year clock did not start anew.
EVID 664 [It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed]
People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it in imposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4]
People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 [a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law]
People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, review granted on another point, March 11, 2026, S295038
After imposing the $300 restitution fine, the superior court stated: “$300 parole revocation fine, that is stayed pending successful—Well, I am going to strike that. There is no parole that’s going to be granted in this case.” As noted, the minute order and abstract of judgment indicate the court (1) imposed and stayed execution of a parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 and (2) imposed and struck “all financial obligations, excluding any actual victim restitution.” The reporter’s transcript of the resentencing hearing does not state the court made these rulings. The superior court must correct the minute order and abstract of judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment.
People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 244 [Ordinarily, where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls]
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2 [The record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order]
People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 603 [the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a subsequently entered minute order]
Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts . . . have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89
People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 859
People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689 [we must correct the discrepancy by ordering the trial court to modify the minute order]