Tag Archives: Fines and fees

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000716

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Where the defendant has been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP), the court cannot impose a parole revocation restitution fine.

Holding:

In every case where a person is convicted of a crime and his or her sentence includes a period of parole, the court shall, at the time of imposing the restitution fine pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4, assess an additional parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount. Where a defendant has been sentenced to LWOP or death, the section does not apply.

Authority:

PEN 1202.45

People v. Alvarez (2025) 18 Cal.5th 387, 484–486 [striking parole revocation fine where defendant was sentenced to death and indeterminate term]

People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1182 [parole revocation fine unwarranted where defendant was sentenced to LWOP and indeterminate term]

Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000708

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Once the court found that the defendant had the inability to pay the court operations assessment fee or the court facilities assessment, it was error for the court to impose the fees but stay them until the defendant had the ability to pay.

First Holding:

If a defendant requests, a trial court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8(a)(1) or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373(a)(1). Because the Legislature has provided fee waivers to indigent civil litigants, equal protection principles require a court, upon request, to consider a criminal defendant’s inability to pay before imposing either assessment.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Here, the trial court found that the defendant was unable to pay the court operations and court facilities assessments, but instead of waiving these fees as a court would do for an indigent civil litigant, the court imposed and stayed the ancillary costs. Because the court in this case should have waived these fees upon its finding of an inability to pay, rather than stay their execution, we will strike the fees.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30 [noting lack of justification for denying criminal defendants the right to seek a waiver of certain ancillary costs when civil litigants facing the same costs may receive such a waiver]

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000706

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a resentencing hearing under Penal Code section 1172.1(a)(1) for the defendant, the trial court reduced defendant’s prison term by striking certain enhancements and re-imposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4(b). In considering the gang enhancements that were imposed in 2006, the court should have examined them to determine whether the elements met the current requirements under the amendments by AB 333 to section 186.22. Also, the restitution fine is more than 10 years old and must be vacated.

First Holding:

When defendant admitted to the enhancement in 2006, former section 186.22(b)(1) provided a sentencing enhancement for a person who committed a felony for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with any criminal street gang, with the specific intent to promote, further, or assist in any criminal conduct by gang members. As the defendant was convicted of attempted murder, carrying a sentence of a life term, the enhancement imposed a minimum of 15 years before release on parole. Without the enhancement, the defendant’s minimum eligibility would have been after seven years.

Authority:

FORMER PEN 186.22

Second Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature passed AB 333, effective January 1, 2022, which added new elements to gang enhancements in section 186.22. It narrowed the definition of criminal street gang and pattern of criminal activity, as well as what it means for an offense to have commonly benefited a street gang.

Under the new legislation, imposition of a gang enhancement requires proof of the following additional requirements with respect to predicate offenses: (1) the offenses must have commonly benefited a criminal street gang where the common benefit is more than reputational; (2) the last predicate offense must have occurred within three years of the date of the currently charged offense; (3) the predicate offenses must be committed on separate occasions or by two or more gang members, as opposed to persons; and (4) the charged offense cannot be used as a predicate offense.

These changes benefit defendants by raising the threshold for a true finding on a gang enhancement.

Authority:

CURRENT PEN 186.22

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1207

People v. Perez (2022) 78 Cal.App.5th 192, 206

Third Holding:

The defendant and the People agree that defendant’s 2006 admission to the gang enhancement on count 1 does not satisfy all the elements for a gang enhancement under the new legislation. Under our independent standard of review, we find no reason to disagree.

Authority:

People v. Rosbury (1997) 15 Cal.4th 206, 209 [de novo review applies when legality of sentence is purely a legal question]

Fourth Holding:

Because the defendant’s admission in 2006 would not satisfy the elements for a gang enhancement under current law, his past admission cannot now support beyond a reasonable doubt the additional punishment allowed by the enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Miles (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1074, 1082 [elements of an alleged sentence enhancement must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt]

People v. Rodriguez (2024) 103 Cal.App.5th 451, 458 [guilty plea admits of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt to every element of crime charged]

Fifth Holding:

AB 333’s substantive changes apply retroactively to all cases not yet final. When a sentence is recalled for resentencing, the matter is non-final and subject to application of ameliorative amendments, like AB 333. The record plainly supports that the defendant’s case was not final because his sentence was recalled under section 1172.1. He was therefore entitled to the benefits of AB 333. Accordingly, we reverse the true findings on the gang enhancement.

Authority:

People v. Tran (2022) 13 Cal.5th 1169, 1206-1207

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 396, 398–399 [recognizing a judgment becomes nonfinal when sentence is vacated and new sentence is imposed]

People v. Lopez (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 835, 845–846 [recalled sentence not final]

Sixth Holding:

The restitution fine imposed in 2006 must be vacated, as it was imposed more than 10 years ago.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Appellate Principles, Effective assistance of counsel, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000703

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing two $30 criminal conviction assessment fees and two $40 court operations assessment fees without first determining whether the defendant had the ability to pay those fees.

First Holding:

The imposition of ancillary payments raises equal protection issues. Upon request, a court must consider a defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment (Pen. Code, sec. 1465.8(a)(1)) or a court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)).

In making this determination, a court must allow the parties to present any relevant evidence or argument on the matter. For these reasons, we vacate the $80 court operations assessment fees and $60 criminal conviction assessment fees and remand the matter to afford the trial court an opportunity to determine in the first instance whether the defendant has the ability to pay those costs.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

To avoid passing upon whether the defendant’s trial attorney failed to provide constitutionally adequate assistance, we exercise our discretion to excuse the defendant’s forfeiture of his challenge to the imposition of the ancillary costs.

Authority:

People v. Torres (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 88, 92 [noting that a reviewing court may reach the merits of a forfeited claim t forestall a defendant’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel]

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000690

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant cannot be convicted of both the robbery and the petty theft it resulted in, and the conviction and sentence for petty theft, along with associated fines and fees, must be reversed.

First Holding:

A defendant cannot be convicted of both robbery and petty theft based on the same conduct because theft is a lesser necessarily included offense of robbery.

Authority:

People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 699

Second Holding:

While section 654 prohibits multiple punishment, it is generally permissible to convict a defendant of multiple charges arising from a single act or course of conduct.

However, a judicially created exception to this rule prohibits multiple convictions based on necessarily included offenses. When a defendant is found guilty of both a greater and a necessarily lesser included offense arising out of the same act or course of conduct, and the evidence supports the verdict on the greater offense, that conviction is controlling, and the conviction of the lesser offense must be reversed.

Authority:

PEN 654

PEN 954

People v. Ortega (1998) 19 Cal.4th 686, 692

People v. Montoya (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1031, 1034

People v. Sanders (2012) 55 Cal.4th 731, 736

Third Holding:

This is true even though the defendant first took items from the store and then took the same items from the loss prevention officer by force. The taking of the items from the loss prevention officer was the same as taking items from the store since the loss prevention officer was acting as an agent of the store.

Authority:

People v. Villa (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 1429, 1434–1435

People v. Estes (1983) 147 Cal.App.3d 23, 29

Fourth Holding:

The People contend the defendant forfeited his right to raise this issue on appeal because he did not object to his separate convictions before the trial court. We consider the merits of the argument because a defendant may challenge an unauthorized sentence even if he or she failed to object below.

Authority:

People v. Hester (2000) 22 Cal.4th 290, 295

Fifth Holding:

Section 1465.8(a)(1) requires a court to impose a $40 court operations assessment for every conviction of a criminal offense. Similarly, Government Code section 70373(a)(1), requires a $30 conviction assessment for each misdemeanor or felony conviction. The court also imposed a fine of $41 under section 1202.5 along with a restitution fine of $600 and a $600 parole revocation restitution fine, which was suspended unless parole is revoked.

Because we reverse the conviction for petty theft, we remand the matter for the superior court to vacate any portion of the fines and fees imposed for petty theft.

Authority:

PEN 1202.5

PEN 1202.4

PEN 1465.8(a)(1)

GOV 70373

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees

Case 000689

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The restitution fine is more than 10 years old and must be vacated. The abstract of judgment does not correctly reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and must be corrected.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment does not correctly reflect the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. At resentencing, the trial court found defendant indigent and waived any non-mandatory fines and fees. Once the trial court found defendant indigent, the court operations and conviction assessments were no longer mandatory. They were, therefore, waived by the court.

The abstract of judgment nevertheless includes a court operations assessment (sec. 1465.8) totaling $560 and a conviction assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373) totaling $420. Because the abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment, we will order it corrected.

Authority:

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

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

Second Holding:

The restitution fine was imposed more than 10 years ago and must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000685

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When resentencing defendant under section 1172.75, the court reimposed the $400 restitution fine and a $400 suspended parole revocation fine originally imposed in 1999. The restitution fine must be vacated.

Holding:

Since the court originally imposed the restitution fine more than 10 years ago, section 1465.9(d) makes it now uncollectible and legally unenforceable.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601 [resentencing does not restart 10-year clock], review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S29503 on a different issue

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000678

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP). It was therefore improper to impose a parole revocation fine, which applies only to non-LWOP sentences.

First Holding:

The trial court erred in imposing and staying a parole revocation fine under section 1202.45(a), because the defendant’s sentence did not include a period of parole.

Authority:

People v. Battle (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 50, 63 [parole revocation fine improperly imposed upon defendant sentenced to indeterminate term on one count and LWOP on another]

Second Holding:

The defendant also contends for the first time on appeal that the court violated his constitutional rights, by ordering him to pay a $10,000 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4(b), a court operations surcharge under Government Code section 69926(a), and court facilities and court operations assessments under Government Code section 70373 and Penal Code 1465.8(a)(1)), without first determining his ability to pay. Because these contentions were not raised below, they are forfeited.

Authority:

People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 856–859

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 597–598

People v. Frandsen (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 1126, 1153–1155

People v. Dueñas (2019) 30 Cal.App.5th 1157, overruled in part by People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 23

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000675

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

When resentencing defendant, the court reimposed the $400 restitution fine and a $400 suspended parole revocation fine originally imposed in 1999. The restitution fine must be vacated.

Holding:

Restitution fines more than 10 years old are not collectible and must be vacated. Resentencing does not restart the clock.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601 [resentencing does not restart 10-year clock], review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038 on a different issue

Appellate Principles, Sentencing, Sixth Amendment

Case 000669

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court erroneously stated that all of the aggravating factors had been found true by the jury. The only aggravating factor alleged, and found true by the jury was that the victims were particularly vulnerable. The sentence is reversed and the court is directed to consider the sentence in light of the only aggravating factor found true by the jury. Further, the court must consider the defendant’s ability to pay the restitution fines and ancillary fees.

First Holding:

In theory, the aggregate prejudice from several different errors occurring at trial could require reversal even if no single error was prejudicial by itself.

Authority:

In re Reno (2012) 55 Cal.4th 428, 483

Second Holding:

Section 1170(b)(2) states that when imposing a sentence under a statute that allows for a low, middle, and high term, the court shall impose the middle term unless there are circumstances in aggravation of the crime that justify the imposition of a term of imprisonment exceeding the middle term and the facts underlying those circumstances have been stipulated to by the defendant or have been found true beyond a reasonable doubt at trial by the jury or by the judge in a court trial.

A Sixth Amendment violation occurs when the trial court relies on unproven aggravating facts to impose an upper term sentence, even if some other aggravating facts relied on have been properly established.

The violation is prejudicial unless an appellate court can conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that a jury would have found true all of the aggravating facts relied upon by the trial court to justify an upper term sentence, or that those facts were otherwise proved true in compliance with the current statutory requirements. If the reviewing court cannot so determine, applying the Chapman standard of review, the defendant is entitled to a remand for resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024)16 Cal.5th 730, 768

Chapman v. California (1967) 386 U.S. 18

Third Holding:

To the extent a potential aggravating circumstance at issue in a particular case rests on a somewhat vague or subjective standard, it may be difficult for a reviewing court to conclude with confidence that, had the issue been submitted to the jury, the jury would have assessed the facts in the same manner as did the trial court.

The determination of whether the crime involved sophistication and planning rests on a vague and subjective standard. Accordingly, we cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury would have found true the two remaining aggravating factors upon which the court relied to conclude the upper term was justified.

We therefore reverse the sentence and remand for the trial court to hold a new sentencing hearing during which it shall only consider aggravating factors that were found true by the jury as part of its analysis of whether to impose an upper term sentence.

Authority:

People v. Lynch (2024)16 Cal.5th 730, 775

Fourth Holding:

Where a trial court imposes fines exceeding the statutory minimum of $300 under section 1202.4(b), and section 1202.45, it must consider the defendant’s ability to pay. Before imposing ancillary costs pursuant to section 1465.8(a)(1) and Government Code section 70373, equal protection principles require the trial court to, on defendant’s request, consider a defendant’s inability to pay such costs.

Authority:

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

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000667

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, it was error to reimpose the restitution fine (as it was more than 10 years old) and to impose various fees that were not enacted until after the defendant was originally sentenced.

First Holding:

A restitution fine cannot be re-imposed more than 10 years after initially imposed.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d) [setting a 10-year limit as to the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4]

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038, on another issue

Second Holding:

The assessment and fee did not become law until after defendant’s 1996 sentencing, and thus cannot be imposed.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754 [applying section 1465.8 only to convictions imposed after its operative date of August 17, 2003]

People v. Davis (2010) 185 Cal.App.4th 998, 1000-1001 [applying Government Code section 70373 only to convictions after its effective date of January 1, 2009]

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing, Standard of review

Case 000658

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

It was an improper delegation of authority to impose a condition of probation that left it up to the probation officer to decide whether treatment should be residential or outpatient. There was also error regarding imposition of fees.

First Holding:

Though the defendant did not object to the condition at the time, the issue is not forfeited on appeal. His claim is cognizable because it is a facial constitutional challenge presenting a pure question of law that does not depend on the underlying factual record. We thus address defendant’s constitutional challenge on the merits, which we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 901 [a facial constitutional challenge may be considered for the first time on appeal because it does not depend on the underlying factual record]

In re Sheena K. (2007) 40 Cal.4th 875, 884–886

Second Holding:

Under the separation of powers doctrine, judicial powers may not be delegated to nonjudicial officers. While the probation officer may properly specify the details necessary to effectuate the court’s probation conditions, it is the court’s duty to determine the nature of the requirements imposed on the probationer.

A court may dictate the basic policy of a condition of probation, leaving specification of details to the probation officer, but the court’s order cannot be entirely open-ended. It is for the court to determine the nature of the prohibition placed on a defendant as a condition of probation. By leaving key determinations to be decided ad hoc, a vague probation condition may result in an impermissible delegation of authority to the probation officer.

Authority:

Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 902

In Victor L. (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 902, 919

Third Holding:

A condition requiring the defendant to enter a residential drug treatment program but authorizing probation to select which residential program may be upheld. We remand for the trial court to either strike the condition, or modify it to specify the type of treatment program in which defendant is directed to participate, including whether it requires defendant to undergo residential treatment. The court’s decision may be informed by the results of any assessment and additional information provided by the parties.

Authority:

People v. Penoli (1996) 46 Cal.App.4th 298, 307–308

People v. Smith (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 897, 903, 905,

People v. O’Neil (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 13

Fourth Holding:

Appellants implicitly concede a respondent’s argument by failing to respond in their reply brief to the respondent’s argument on that point. A court may assume respondent’s claim was correct if the defendant did not dispute respondent’s claim in his reply.

Authority:

Rudick v. State Bd. of Optometry (2019) 41 Cal.App.5th 77, 89–90

Reygoza v. Superior Court (1991) 230 Cal.App.3d 514, 519 and fn. 4

Fifth Holding:

An order of probation, like an abstract of judgment, must specify the statutory basis of each fine or fee imposed.

Authority:

People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 716

Sixth Holding:

In general costs of prosecuting and rehabilitating criminals are not recoverable absent express statutory authority to the contrary. The Legislature repealed section 1203.1b (which authorized to court to impose an order for the cost of probation services, depending on ability to pay, and it could not be a condition of probation) and enacted section 1465.9, which states in relevant part, that on after July 1, 2021, the balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to section 1203.1b [among numerous other statutes] shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

People v. Baker (1974) 39 Cal.App.3d 550, 559–560

Seventh Holding:

The abstract of judgment contains an error. It states that the jury found true the enhancement for great bodily injury under section 12022.7. This conflicts with the actual oral statement of the judge (who conducted a court trial on the enhancement), in which the judge stated “I am not going to find true the allegation of great bodily injury.”

Where, as here, discrepancies exist between the court’s oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order, the oral pronouncement controls. The trial court should thus modify the probation order to conform to its oral pronouncement.

Authority:

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