Category Archives: Fines and fees

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000856

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

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

Discretion, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000849

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing held under section 1172.75, the resentencing court erred by (1) imposing consecutive sentences on the defendant’s attempted murder and felon in possession of a firearm counts because the court was unaware of its discretion to impose concurrent terms, (2) not recalculating custody credits, and (3) reimposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4.

First Holding:

When the Three Strikes law applies, sentences for current qualifying offenses must be ordered to run consecutively to each other if the current offenses occur on separate occasions and do not arise from the same set of operative facts.

Conversely, where a sentencing court determines that two or more current felony convictions were either committed on the same occasion or arise from the same set of operative facts, consecutive sentencing is not required under the three strikes law, but is permissible in the trial court’s sound discretion.

Authority:

PEN 667(c)(6)

People v. Henderson (2022) 14 Cal.5th 34, 45

People v. Lawrence (2000) 24 Cal.4th 219, 233

Second Holding:

When the record shows the trial court proceeded with sentencing on the erroneous assumption it lacked discretion, remand is necessary so that the court may have the opportunity to exercise its sentencing discretion at a new sentencing hearing. Defendants are entitled to sentencing decisions made in the exercise of the informed discretion of the sentencing court, and a court that is unaware of its discretionary authority cannot exercise its informed discretion.

Authority:

People v. Brown (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 1213, 1228

Third Holding:

The attempted murder and felon in possession of a firearm counts were based on the defendant’s possession and use of the same firearm. There is no suggestion that the defendant possessed more than one gun when he committed the offenses.

Because the attempted murder and felon in possession of a firearm counts arose from the same set of operative facts, the resentencing court had discretion to impose concurrent sentences. Remand for resentencing is appropriate as the court was unaware of its discretion, and there is no indication that had it been aware of its discretion, it would nevertheless have imposed consecutive terms.

Authority:

People v. Garcia (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1567

People v. Deloza (1998) 18 Cal.4th 585, 600

People v. Gutierrez (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1354, 1391

Fourth Holding:

When a felony sentence is modified during the term of imprisonment, the trial court must recalculate and credit the actual time defendant had served on his sentence prior to the modification. Where a defendant has served any portion of his sentence under a commitment based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is modified during the term of imprisonment, such time shall be credited upon any subsequent sentence he may receive upon a new commitment for the same criminal act or acts. On remand, the resentencing court must recalculate the defendant’s custody credits for actual time served.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 23

Fifth Holding:

The restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4 must be vacated under section 1465.9. Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to add subdivision (d), which provides that, 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.

Because the defendant’s restitution fine was imposed more than 10 years ago, any balance is unenforceable and uncollectable by operation of law. The fine must be vacated

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000847

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing the defendant under section 1172.75, the court failed to award credit for the time the defendant served in custody. The court imposed a restitution fine that should have been vacated. The court imposed repealed fees. Remanded for the trial court to correct these errors, along with errors in the abstract of judgment.

First Holding:

Where a defendant has served any portion of his sentence under a commitment based upon a judgment which judgment is subsequently declared invalid or which is modified during the term of imprisonment, such time shall be credited upon any subsequent sentence he may receive upon a new commitment for the same criminal act or acts.

A court resentencing a defendant must credit the defendant with all actual days he had spent in custody, whether in jail or prison, up to that time. The updated total of credit must then be added to the abstract of judgment.

Here, the most recently amended abstract reflects no credit for time served. On remand, the trial court will need to recalculate the number of days the defendant spent in custody from the initial sentencing through the date of the resentencing and prepare an updated abstract of judgment.

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the correct date that the new sentence was pronounced at the resentencing hearing, not the date of the original sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 37

People v. Phoenix (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1125, 1129-1130

Second Holding:

The restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4 at the original sentencing in 2011 must be vacated. Section 1465.9(d) provides that 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:

The trial court was not authorized to impose fees under former Government Code section 29550.2. The Legislature repealed that statute effective July 1, 2021. (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, sec. 25.) Even if Government Code section 29550.2 were still in effect, the Legislature has declared such fees unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated. Accordingly, we vacate the main jail booking fee and the main jail classification fee imposed by the trial court.

Authority:

GOV 6111(a)

Fourth Holding:

We note a clerical error in the most recently amended abstract of judgment. The abstract includes a solitary numeral “1” in section 3 of the enhancements section. The numeral is listed without an identifying label and is not included in the aggregate sentence. Presumably, this numeral is left over from the prior prison term enhancement that was stricken by the trial court at resentencing and should be deleted. We will direct the trial court to correct the amended abstract of judgment by deleting this errant numeral.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its order directing correction of the abstract of judgment, but the law is clear that it has that authority. I have listed below some cases the court could have cited as authority.)

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

Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000835

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing under section 1172.75, the court erroneously imposed an enhancement that had been vacated as a result of an earlier appeal. The court also erred by not recalculating the credit for time served through the date of the resentencing. Further, the restitution fine must be vacated, as it was imposed at least 10 years ago.

First Holding:

When a prison term already in progress is modified the sentencing court must recalculate and credit against the modified sentence all actual time the defendant has already served, whether in jail or prison, and whether before or since he was originally committed and delivered to prison custody. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is responsible for calculating any postsentence custody credits.

Authority:

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 29

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 397

Second Holding:

After 10 years have elapsed from the imposition of a restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4, any remaining balance is unenforceable and uncollectible. Any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Third Holding:

The trial court struck the six one-year prior prison terms but declined to otherwise modify the sentence. However, although this court had previously vacated the three-year term imposed on count 1 pursuant to section 12022.7,(a), in resentencing the defendant, the trial court again imposed the enhancement and three-year term. The parties agree this was error, as do we. The great bodily injury enhancement imposed as to count 1 must be stricken and the three-year term vacated.

(Gary note: The court cited no authority for its order striking the enhancement that had been stricken in the earlier appeal. The relief seems obvious enough. Under section 1260, “The court may reverse, affirm, or modify a judgment or order appealed from, or reduce the degree of the offense or attempted offense or the punishment imposed, and may set aside, affirm, or modify any or all of the proceedings subsequent to, or dependent upon, such judgment or order, and may, if proper, order a new trial and may, if proper, remand the cause to the trial court for such further proceedings as may be just under the circumstances.”

(If that doesn’t precisely address the issue, one could also look at Dutra, although it, too, is not exactly on point. It dealt with the trial court’s act of not complying with the instructions in the remittitur because of a change in the law, but the change did not permit it to act outside the direction of the remittitur. Again, not exactly what happened here.

(Or one could argue that imposing the enhancement resulted in an unauthorized sentence (again), which can be corrected whenever the matter is before the court. See, for example, Sanders.

(It just seems so intuitive that the trial court, on resentencing, could not reimpose an enhancement that was stricken as unlawful in the earlier appeal. I’m not surprised the appellate court did not see a need to cite authority, particularly where the parties both agreed on the error and remedy. The authorities I have listed below were not cited by the court, and the two cases are fairly distinguishable from this situation, but might prove interesting reading nonetheless.)

Authority:

PEN 1260

People v. Dutra (2006) 145 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1367

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 743, fn. 13

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000831

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court should have recalculated the defendant’s custody credits. Further, the abstract of judgment erroneously indicates that the court reimposed the restitution fine and suspended it. In fact, the court did not reimpose the fine, and thus this is clerical error that must be corrected.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment erroneously includes a restitution fine. Section 1465.9(d) provides that 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.

In fact, the trial court did not reimpose the restitution fine, so this appears to have been a clerical error. Therefore, we remand so the court may correct the abstract of judgment.

(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its order directing correction, but there are many cases the court could have relied on. I have set forth several below the Penal Code section in the Authority section below.)

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

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

Second Holding:

There was an error in calculating the defendant’s days of custody credit. Remanded for the court to calculate the correct number of days.

(Gary note: Again, the court cited no authority for this obvious solution, so I have set forth a few below.)

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

People v. Buckhalter (2001) 26 Cal.4th 20, 33–34

People v. Dean (2024) 99 Cal.App.5th 391, 396–397

Eighth Amendment, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000820

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred in ordering defendant to pay ancillary costs and to reimburse the police department for the SART [Sexual Assault Response Team] examination costs without considering his ability to pay and while the amount of victim reimbursement had yet to be determined. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

First Holding:

Because defendant did not obtain a certificate of probable cause, our review is limited to issues occurring after entry of the plea that do not affect its validity.

Authority:

PEN 1237.5

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(3)

People v. Mendez (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1084, 1096

Second Holding:

While this appeal was pending, our Supreme Court decided Kopp, which held that (1) a defendant may challenge the imposition of a punitive fine (e.g., restitution fines under Penal Code section 1202.4) under the excessive fines provisions of the United States and California Constitutions; and (2) equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s ability to pay before imposing ancillary costs (e.g., court facilities fees under Government Code section 70373 and court operations fees under section 1465.8).

Because defendant did not have the benefit of Kopp’s specific reasoning at the time of his sentencing, we conclude he must be afforded the opportunity to assert an excessive fine objection and develop a factual record on the considerations relevant to that claim.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1

Third Holding:

The touchstone of the excessive fines inquiry is the principle of proportionality: The amount of the forfeiture must bear some relationship to the gravity of the offense that it is designed to punish.

Four considerations inform that inquiry: (1) the defendant’s culpability; (2) the relationship between the harm and the penalty; (3) the penalties imposed in similar statutes; and (4) the defendant’s ability to pay.

Authority:

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

People ex rel. Lockyer v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. (2005) 37 Cal.4th 707, 728

Fourth Holding:

As for the $30 court operations fee and the $40 court facilities fee, Kopp held that, in light of the Legislature’s provision of fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing ancillary costs in criminal cases.

Authority:

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

Fifth Holding:

Here, the trial court erroneously denied defense counsel’s request for an ability to pay hearing. Although some courts have found such error harmless where the record otherwise reflects the defendant’s earning capacity, we decline to do so here, as the People do not contend the record is sufficient to make such a determination in this case.

Furthermore, an ability to pay hearing is also required under section 1203.1h [regarding the cost of medical examinations incurred by law enforcement for the collection and preservation of evidence in sexual assault cases].

Authority:

PEN 1203.1h(b)

People v. Aviles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1075–1077

People v. Johnson (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 134, 139–140

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

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000755

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Because of a change in the law while the minor’s case has been pending, the restitution fine ordered by the court must be stricken.

First Holding:

Here, the juvenile court imposed a restitution fine as a condition of probation. At the time of the minor’s disposition, the restitution fine was mandatory. Effective January 1, 2025, however, the Legislature passed AB 1186 which amended Welfare and Instituitons Code section 730.6 to prohibit a court from imposing a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Section 602.

Authority:

WIC 730.6(a)(2)

Second Holding:

An adult or juvenile offender is generally entitled to benefit from amendments that become effective while their case is on appeal and not yet final.

Authority:

People v. Vieira (2005) 35 Cal.4th 264, 305 [applying a revised version of the statute in setting a restitution fine]

In re N.D. (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 885, 891 [rule of retroactivity applies to juvenile delinquency judgments]

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [Where the amendatory statute mitigates punishment and there is no saving clause, the rule is that the amendment will operate retroactively so that the lighter punishment is imposed.

Third Holding:

Because imposing a restitution fine constitutes “punishment” and the minor’s case was not yet final when section 730.6 became effective, we conclude section 730.6 operates retroactively and precludes imposition of a restitution fine. Therefore, the restitution fine should be stricken.

Authority:

People v. Allen (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 312, 321