Tag Archives: Fines and fees

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees

Case: 000151

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Though the court affirmed the other orders of the trial court regarding the resentencing conducted under Penal Code section 1172.75, the restitution fine, ordered more than 10 years earlier, must be stricken.

First Holding:

As a result of amendments effective January 1, 2025, the restitution fine must be stricken, because it has been more than 10 years since it was originally imposed. Penal Code section 1465.9 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. Not only is the unpaid portion now uncollectible, the court must vacate the portion of the judgment imposing it.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 626-627

People v. Lopez-Vinck (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 945, 953

Second Holding:

Though the People argue that the 10 years has not passed, because he was resentenced only a few years ago, the People do not identify any legal authority or develop any substantive reasoning supporting the proposition that a component of a defendant’s punishment starts over at resentencing. We therefore need not consider that argument.

However, the plain language of the statute does not support their interpretation and the result they advocate for is in tension with clearly expressed legislative intent to eliminate fees and fines that deepen the poverty cycle for offenders without meeting the financial needs of crime survivors. We find the People’s position untethered from the plain language of the statute and the underlying legislative intent, and in advancing the proposition that the restitution fine was “reimposed” at the resentencing hearing such that the clock affording defendant ameliorative relief from a component of his punishment restarted, they fail to elucidate the point or acknowledge any of the issues such an interpretation necessarily implicates. Therefore, we give effect to the plain language of section 1465.9(d) providing that any portion of a judgment imposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4 shall be vacated 10 years after imposition.

Authority:

People v. Bryant, Smith and Wheeler (2014) 60 Cal.4th 335, 363 [If a party’s briefs do not provide legal argument and citation to authority on each point raised, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it without consideration.]

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000149

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the sentence is life without the possibility of parole, it was improper to impose a parole revocation fine, and it must be stricken.

Holding:

A parole revocation fine may not be imposed for a term of LWOP, as the statute is expressly inapplicable where there is no period of parole. Moreover, our Supreme Court recently recognized that the parole revocation fine statute does not apply where a defendant is given both an LWOP sentence and an indeterminate term.

Authority:

PEN 1202.45

People v. Jenkins (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 805, 819

People v. Alvarez (2025) 18 Cal.5th 387, 485–486

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000148

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the trial court intended to impose the minimum restitution fine, but mistakenly believed the minimum was $600 rather than $300, the appellate court modified the restitution fine to $300 and directed the trial court to prepare an amended minute order following sentencing and an amended abstract of judgment reflecting these amounts. Here, the record makes clear that the trial court intended to impose the statutory minimum fine. We therefore modify the judgments to impose a $300 restitution fine with a matching, suspended parole revocation restitution fine in each case.

First Holding:

In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record. The restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense. If the person is convicted of a felony, the fine shall not be less than three hundred dollars ($300) and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(b)(1)

Second Holding:

[GARY NOTE: The court did not cite any authority for its jurisdiction to modify the mistaken order of the court below, but it does have that authority under PC 1260.]

Authority:

PEN 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.]

Fines and fees, Juveniles, Retroactivity

Case: 000137

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minor contends, and the People concede, that recent amendments to Welfare and Institutions Code section 730.6 apply retroactively, requiring that the restitution fine imposed by the juvenile court be stricken.

First Holding:

While this appeal was pending, the Legislature amended section 730.6 and removed the requirement that a minor pay a restitution fine. The relevant portion of the statute now provides that the court shall not impose a separate and additional restitution fine against a minor found to be a person described in Section 602.

Authority:

WIC 730.6

Second Holding:

Appellant is entitled to the ameliorative benefits of this amendment.

Authority:

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 745-746 [ameliorative legislation changes applicable to cases pending on appeal]

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case: 000129

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court must correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the court never imposed fines or fees other than restitution to the Victim’s Compensation Board, and must recalculate his actual custody credits.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect that the court waived the imposition of a restitution fine and the parole revocation fine and other fines and fees.  [GARY NOTE: The court did not cite authority for correction of the abstract of judgment, but the law is clear that it has the authority to do so, and I have listed some authorities below.]

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324

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

People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689

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

Second Holding:

As the People did not object in the court below, the People have forfeited the issue of the propriety of the trial court order waiving the restitution and other fines and fees.

Authority:

People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303

Third Holding:

When a trial court resentences a defendant who is currently in custody, it must calculate and credit him with all actual days spent in custody (whether in jail or prison) up to that time, including time in custody after the original sentencing. [GARY NOTE: the court did not cite authority for remanding for the court to determine custody credits, but the law is clear, per the authorities I have set forth below.]

Authority:

PEN 2900.1

PEN 2900.5

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

Fines and fees, Sixth Amendment, Standard of review

Case: 000127

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant is entitled to a jury trial on two of the aggravating factors the trial court found to be true in the present case. He entitled to resentencing due to prejudicial error, and we remand the matter for that purpose.

First Holding:

The trial court erroneously imposed the upper term by relying on its own determination that the defendant’s two prior convictions were numerous. The defendant was entitled to have a jury decide that issue beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024) 16 Cal.5th 730, 742-743

People v. Wiley (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1069, 1076

People v. Berry (1981) 117 Cal.App.3d 184, 191 [two prior convictions cannot be numerous]

Second Holding:

In assessing a defendant’s ability to pay, a court may consider a defendant’s past income-earning capacity. Moreover, a court may consider whether a defendant has the ability to satisfy the fine and assessments through prison wages and future earnings after release from custody.

Authority:

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

People v. Aviles (2019) 39 Cal.App.5th 1055, 1076

Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case: 000117

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court’s judgment is modified to vacate any portions of the probation related fees imposed by the trial court as part of probation condition No. 14 that remained unpaid as of July 1, 2021.

First Holding:

AB 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) repealed the authority to collect various fees. The bill makes the unpaid balance of these fees unenforceable, uncollectible, and requires that any portion of a judgment imposing such fees be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Second Holding:

The defendant is entitled to the retroactive application of these ameliorative changes.

Authority:

People v. Esquivel (2021) 11 Cal.5th 671, 680

People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 258

Amelioration, Duty of the court, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000088

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court made several errors in resentencing under Penal Code section 1172.5. It failed to strike the now-invalid priors, if failed to consider the impact of AB 333 on gang aspects; it imposed of repealed $10 admin fee. On remand the court must also recalculate credits and correct the abstract of judgment. [GARY NOTE: The opinion also provided extensive discussion of the application of section 1385, regarding dismissals in the furtherance or interest of justice, touching on abuse of discretion, etc., that were resolved against the defendant on appeal. I have provided a few principles and authorities on those points for educational reasons, even though they did not support relief for the defendant in this instance.]

First Holding:

Section 1172.75 declares legally invalid all one-year prior prison term enhancements except those for sexually violent offenses described in WI Code section 6600(b). Because the defendant’s two priors are not sexually violent offenses, they were legally invalid and should have been stricken.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

Second Holding:

Assembly Bill No. 333 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) (AB 333) modified the gang enhancement by adding new requirements that did not previously exist. Because AB 333 retroactively applies to people, like defendant, who have been granted a resentencing hearing, the trial court erred in not assessing whether the jury’s findings in this case otherwise addressed the new requirements or whether the jury’s failure to do so was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

Authority:

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 395-396

Third Holding:

The trial court imposed a $10 administrative screening fee ostensibly under section 1463.07 in November 2018. This is unenforceable because our Legislature in 2021 repealed that section and nullified prior fees imposed under that section.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Fourth Holding:

It was not necessary for the trial court to respond to all of the defendant’s contentions at the sentencing hearing. Unless the record affirmatively demonstrates otherwise, the trial court is deemed to have considered all the relevant sentencing factors set forth in the rules.

Authority:

Rules of Court, rule 4.409 [sentencing factors will be deemed to have been considered unless the record affirmatively reflects otherwise]

People v. Knowles (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 757, 765

People v. Parra Martinez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 317, 322

People v. Brugman (2021) 62 Cal.App.5th 608, 637

Fifth Holding:

We review the exercise of sentencing discretion for an abuse of discretion but recognize that a trial court’s reliance on an incorrect legal standard constitutes such an abuse. Application of the wrong test in determination of whether a defendant poses a danger to public safety is an abuse of discretion.

Authority:

People v. Gonzalez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 215, 225

Sixth Holding:

Despite the use of the phrase “shall be dismissed,” section 1385’s provisions that require a court to give great weight in favor of dismissal do not apply where a trial court finds that dismissal of the enhancements would endanger public safety.

Authority:

People v. Mendoza (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 287, 296

People v. Mazur (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 438, 444-446

People v. Cota (2023) 97 Cal.App.5th 318, 335-337

People v. Renteria (2023) 96 Cal.App.5th 1276, 1284-1290

People v. Anderson (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 233, 238-241

People v. Lipscomb (2022) 87 Cal.App.5th 9, 15-21

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees

Case 000087

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded to allow the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that the $30 criminal conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373), the $40 court operations assessment (Pen. Code, sec. 1465.8), the $300 restitution fine (Pen. Code, sec. 1202.4), and the $300 parole revocation restitution fine (Pen. Code, sec. 1202.45), were vacated.

Holding:

The court has inherent power to correct clerical errors in abstract of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Baker (2021) 10 Cal.5th 1044, 1109

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000083

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The amount of the victim restitution order must be amended, the restitution collection fee must be stricken. And an error in the minute order must be corrected to reflect that two misdemeanors were dismissed.

First Holding:

Victims are entitled to an amount of restitution so as to make them whole but not more than their actual losses arising out of the defendant’s criminal conduct. Restitution is not intended to provide the victim with a windfall. Although the court’s discretion in setting the amount of restitution is broad, and it may use any rational method of fixing the amount of restitution as long as it is reasonably calculated to make the victim whole, here the court awarded the victim what amounts to a windfall.

Authority:

People v. Nichols (2017) 8 Cal.App.5th 330, 342

People v. Baker (2005) 126 Cal.App.4th 463, 470

Second Holding:

The 10 percent restitution collection fee is unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Greeley (2021) 70 Cal.App.5th 609, 625 [On September 18, 2020, the Governor signed AB 1869, which eliminated the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system and eliminated all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of specified administrative fees.]

Third Holding:

The minute order fails to reflect that two misdemeanor counts were dismissed, and it must be corrected.

[Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its order for correction, but there is plenty out there. I have set forth a few cases the court could have cited, for your convenience.]

Authority:

People v. Scott (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1303, 1324
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 387–388
People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2

Abstracts and Minutes, Sentencing

Case 000062

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erred when it imposed but stayed the enhancement for a prior serious felony (sec. 667(a)) that was not alleged, and when it imposed but stayed an enhancement for prior felony arson convictions (sec. 451.1(a)(1)). We can modify the judgment without a remand. We also strike fines from the abstract of judgment that the trial court had imposed but stayed because the defendant had no ability to pay.

First Holding:

A sentence is unauthorized when it includes punishment for a prior serious felony enhancement (sec. 667(a)) that was not alleged. A claim that a sentence is unauthorized may be raised for the first time on appeal, and is subject to judicial correction whenever the error comes to the attention of the reviewing court.

Authority:

PEN 1170.1(e)

People v. Anderson (2020) 9 Cal.5th 946, 953

People v. Dotson (1997) 16 Cal.4th 547, 554, fn. 6

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, fn. 17

Second Holding:

It is improper to stay the punishment for an enhancement, as opposed to striking it.

Authority:

People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354, fn. 17

People v. Lopez (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 355, 364

Third Holding:

Because the court clearly indicated it would not impose these enhancements, remand is not required.

Authority:

People v. Salazar (2023) 15 Cal.5th 416, 431

Fourth Holding:

The oral pronouncement of a sentence controls over the abstract of judgment, and the trial court struck the fines and fees because of the defendant’s inability to pay. The abstract of judgment must be amended to conform to the oral judgment.

Authority:

People v. Hamed (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 928, 937–938