Tag Archives: Fines and fees

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000584

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the restitution fine should not have been reimposed. The abstract of judgment reflects a parole revocation restitution fine that was not imposed. We will modify the judgment to vacate the restitution fine and direct that the trial court prepare an amended abstract of judgment removing the restitution fine and parole revocation restitution fine.

First Holding:

On resentencing, the court reimposed the original $5000 restitution fine, over the defendant’s objection that he had already paid it. Effective January 1, 2025, 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. Here, the trial court reimposed defendant’s original fines, including a $5,000 restitution fine, 30 years after they were originally imposed. Therefore, any unpaid portion remaining on the $5,000 restitution fine must be vacated. The defendant advised the trial court that he had paid it in full, but regardless, any order regarding any remaining unpaid balance shall be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600-601, review granted Mar. 11, 2026, S295038 on another point

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment lists a parole revocation fine of $5,000, but it was not ordered by the court. The abstract must be corrected accordingly.

[GARY note: The court cited no authority for its directive that the abstract of judgment be corrected. Likely because the error and cure seem so obvious. But there is plenty of authority for the court’s order, and I have set out some below.]

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

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000582

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is reversed and remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the trial court, in accordance with this opinion and Kopp, to determine whether the defendant has the ability to pay the various fines, fees, and assessments it previously imposed.

Holding:

While this case was on appeal, the Kopp court concluded that a trial court must conduct an ability-to-pay hearing before imposing a (1) restitution fine above the statutory minimum of $300; or ancillary fees. The Supreme Court also found that, if requested by the defendant, the court must consider the defendant’s inability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment (sec. 1465(a)(1)) or a court facilities assessment (Gov. Code, sec. 70373(a)(1)), allowing the parties on remand to present any relevant evidence or argument on the matter. On remand the defendant shall be afforded the opportunity to assert legal analyses applicable to such a challenge under the excessive fines clauses and argue how the particular facts of this case inform such an inquiry.

Authority:

U.S. Const., 8th Amend.

Cal. Const., art. I, sec. 17

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

Second Holding:

Inability to pay may be considered only in increasing the amount of the restitution fine in excess of the minimum fine pursuant to section 1202.4(c).

Authority:

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

Due process, Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000580

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

Judgment is reversed and remanded for the court to consider the fines and fees imposed with regard to ability to pay and under the excessive fines doctrine.

First Holding:

In Kopp, the Supreme Court addressed how court-ordered payments should be analyzed when a defendant claims inability to pay. There are three categories: fines, ancillary costs, and victim restitution. “Fines” refers to penalties inflicted by the sovereign for commission of offenses. I.e., “fine” refers to a legislatively provided punishment following a criminal conviction.

By contrast, “ancillary costs” refers to payments that are generally not intended to punish for the commission of a crime but instead are funding mechanisms, created by the Legislature to reimburse a government agencies for expenditures or to otherwise fund a broad assortment of services. “Restitution” refers to payments made to compensate crime victims for economic loss caused by an offense.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 9, 11-12

Second Holding:

Restitution fines under section 1202.4 constitute punishment and therefore fines rather than true restitution and that parole revocation restitution fines under section 1202.45—which are in the same amount as restitution fines—are likewise punitive and therefore fines. Such fines do not need to be structured to reflect each person’s ability and avoid disproportionate burdens. Accordingly, due process does not require courts to consider the ability of defendants to pay fines before imposing them. Instead, excessive fines analysis, which considers ability to pay, is the proper vehicle to challenge punitive fines.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 13-14, 22-23

Bearden v. Georgia (1983) 461 U.S. 660, 666, fn. 8

San Antonio Independent School Dist. v. Rodriguez (1973) 411 U.S. 1, 22

Third Holding:

Ancillary costs or assessments should be imposed on criminal defendants only if they have the ability to pay the costs, on equal protection grounds. Kopp noted that the Legislature has enacted a robust fee waiver system in civil cases. In addition, because both the civil operations and facilities assessments imposed on the defendant in Kopp were enacted to raise money for the courts and were ultimately deposited into the same fund, the Supreme Court concluded that there appears no rational basis to deny only indigent criminal defendants the ability to avoid those costs.

Accordingly, the court in Kopp directed the trial court on remand to consider the defendant’s ability to pay before imposing a court operations assessment under section 1465.8 or a court facilities assessment under Government Code section 70373.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 24-30

Equal protection, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000571

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court erred in imposing fees regardless of the defendant’s inability to pay. We strike the fees.

Holding:

In Kopp, our Supreme Court recently held that, if a defendant requests, a trial court must consider the 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). Here, defendant argued he had not been working and was therefore unable to pay any fines and fees, and the trial court agreed as to the court operations and court facilities assessments.

However, instead of waiving these fees as a court would do for an indigent civil litigant, the trial court imposed and stayed the ancillary costs. Given that 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. No similar differences justify 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. While the trial court did not have the benefit of our Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kopp at the time it imposed fines and fees, the order nonetheless violated defendant’s equal protection rights, and we must strike the fees.

Authority:

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

Duty of the court, Elements of crime, Jury instructions, Sentencing, Standard of review, Sufficiency of and substantial evidence

Case 000540

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was convicted of five offenses arising from a violent, domestic-violence-related altercation. The trial court erred when it failed to instruct the jury on a lesser included offense. The court issued a protective order outside of its jurisdiction under Penal Code section 136.2. The court miscalculated the total assessment due from the defendant pursuant to Government Code section 70373(a). We vacate the protective order and reverse the judgment, remanding for a possible retrial on one conviction and for a full resentencing.

First Holding:

We review de novo a claim that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on the applicable principles of law.

Authority:

People v. Lueth (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 189, 195

Second Holding:

In a criminal case, a jury verdict must be unanimous. When an accusatory pleading charges the defendant with a single criminal act, and the evidence presented at trial tends to show more than one such unlawful act, either the prosecution must elect the specific act relied upon to prove the charge to the jury, or the court must instruct the jury that it must unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same specific criminal act. The unanimity instruction requirement is intended to eliminate the danger that the defendant will be convicted even though there is no single offense which all the jurors agree the defendant committed. If required, the instruction must be given sua sponte.

Authority:

People v. Russo (2001) 25 Cal.4th 1124, 1132

People v. Melhado (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1529, 1534

People v. Riel (2000) 22 Cal.4th 1153, 1199

Third Holding:

If a prosecutor elects to rely upon a specific act to prove a charged crime, then the trial court has no duty to give the jury an instruction that it must unanimously agree on the act that constituted the crime charged.

Authority:

People v. Hawkins (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1428, 1455

Fourth Holding:

The trial court instructed the jury with the elements of assault with a deadly weapon, but did not instruct them with the elements of simple assault. We conduct an independent review of the question of whether this was error.

Authority:

People v. Avila (2009) 46 Cal.4th 680, 705

Fifth Holding:

We conclude that it was error for the to not instruct the jury with the elements of simple assault. A trial court must instruct on lesser included offenses, even in the absence of a request, whenever there is substantial evidence raising a question as to whether all of the elements of the charged offense are present. Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to deserve consideration by the jury, that is, evidence that a reasonable jury could find persuasive. Simple assault is a lesser included offense of aggravated assault The trial court, accordingly, was required to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of simple assault if a reasonable jury could have found that the defendant committed only a simple assault and not an assault with a deadly weapon.

Authority:

People v. Lewis (2001) 25 Cal.4th 610, 645

People v. McDaniel (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 736, 747

Sixth Holding:

Under section 245 (assault with a deadly weapon), an object may be a deadly weapon in two ways. First, objects are considered deadly weapons as a matter of law, or deadly per se, when the ordinary use for which they are designed establishes their character as such. Typical examples include dirks and blackjacks. Second, if an object is not inherently deadly, the prosecution must prove to the trier of fact that the object was used in such a manner as to be capable of producing and likely to produce, death or great bodily injury. Objects which have been found to be a deadly weapon based on the way they were used include a pillow, an automobile, a large rock, a razor blade, and a fingernail file. A wrench is not inherently deadly as a matter of law. It is designed and typically used for innocent purposes.

Authority:

People v. Aguilar (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1023, 1028-1029

People v. Montes (1999) 74 Cal.App.4th 1050, 1054

People v. Aledamat (2019) 8 Cal.5th 1, 6

Seventh Holding:

Based on the evidence, we conclude reasonable jurors could have decided the evidence was sufficient to prove the defendant assaulted the victim with the wrench but was insufficient to prove he did so in a manner likely to cause death or great bodily injury. And so we must reverse the judgment and conviction for assault with a deadly weapon. Under settled law, the judgment will be modified unless the People elect to retry the defendant on the greater charge and are successful.

Authority:

People v. Edwards (1985) 39 Cal.3d 107, 118

Eighth Holding:

Whether section 136.2(i)(1) authorized the court to issue a protective order against a defendant is an issue of statutory interpretation we review de novo.

Authority:

People v. Pena (2025) 113 Cal.App.5th 640, 645

Ninth Holding:

Under section 136.2(i)(2), trial courts, generally speaking, are authorized to issue postconviction orders restraining a criminal defendant who has been convicted of a crime involving domestic violence from any contact with a percipient witness to the crime who has been harassed by the defendant. It was improper to issue a protective order under section 136.2(i) where the person was not a percipient witness. The broader protective orders under section 136.2 are limited to the time frame during the pendency of the criminal action. It does not apply to postconviction orders.

Authority:

PEN 136.2

People v. Beckemeyer (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 461, 465 and fn. 4, 466

People v. Walts (2025) 112 Cal.App.5th 127, 140–144

Tenth Holding:

The court imposed $180 as the court facilities funding assessment for the five counts. However, at $30 for each count, the assessment should have been $150, not $180.

Authority:

GOV 70373(a)

Abstracts and Minutes, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000538

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it contains several errors, including a representation that the court imposed a $300 restitution, contrary to the actual order.

First Holding:

The abstract of judgment reflects a $300 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b) and a $300 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 that were not orally imposed during the sentencing hearing. Under section 1202.4(b), 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.

Under section 1202.45, if a defendant’s sentence includes a period of parole or the defendant is subject to post-release community supervision or mandatory supervision, the court shall impose an additional fine in the same amount as the section 1202.4 fine.

The People did not object to the court’s failure to orally impose these fines. Because such fines are discretionary given the court’s ability to not impose them if it makes certain findings on the record, the People forfeited the imposition of the fines by not objecting. Accordingly, we direct those fines to be stricken.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

The abstract of judgment reflects that the restitution fine was imposed, but it was not. The oral pronouncement controls, so we amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185, 188

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees

Case 000523

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The minute order incorrectly states the court ordered defendant to pay various fines and fees, whereas the court actually struck all applicable fines and fees. It must be corrected.

Holding:

After defendant entered the plea agreement and the court placed him on probation, it ordered the applicable fines and fees stricken. The minute order from the plea hearing incorrectly reflects that the court imposed various fines and fees. Respondent agrees with defendant that the minute order should be corrected to show the fines and fees were stricken. This appears to be a clerical error, which we will direct the superior court clerk to correct.

Authority:

People v. Schultz (1965) 238 Cal.App.2d 804, 80

In re Candelario (1970) 3 Cal.3d

Fines and fees, Probation Parole PRCS, Sentencing

Case 000521

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court improperly imposed a domestic violence fee, because that only applies to those granted probation, which the defendant was not, as he was sentenced to prison.

First Holding:

The requirement to make a $500 domestic violence payment is not authorized by section 1203.097, because the trial court denied probation. The judgment is modified to strike the $500 domestic violence payment.

Authority:

PEN 1203.097

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

Case: 000495

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On recalling the sentence under section 1172.75, the court should have stricken the balance due on the restitution fine ordered more than 10 years previously.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, Assembly Bill No. 1186 amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which 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.” Here, the trial court imposed a restitution fine of $10,000 when it sentenced defendant in 2001. Because more than 10 years have elapsed since the date of imposition, we order the restitution fine vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Second Holding:

Section 1465.9 does not contemplate vacating parole revocation fines under section 1202.45. Section 1465.9(d) does not mention section 1202.45. When a statute is silent on a point, the courts resort to statutory interpretation. The proper interpretation of a statute is a question of law we review de novo. When interpreting a statute, our fundamental task is to determine the Legislature’s intent so as to effectuate the law’s purpose. To determine the Legislature’s intent, we must look to the statute’s words and give them their usual and ordinary meaning. If there is no ambiguity in the language, we presume the Legislature meant what it said and the plain meaning of the statute governs.

There is no support in the plain language of the statute for the premise that the Legislature intended section 1465.9 to provide relief from parole revocation fines. If the Legislature intended such a result, it could have so specified. It did not. As such, we conclude that a section 1202.45 parole revocation fine cannot be vacated under section 1465.9.

Authority:

Waterman Convalescent Hospital Inc. v. State Dept. of Health Services (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1439

People v. Lewis (2021) 11 Cal.5th 952, 961

People v. Snook (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1210, 1215

People v. Gonzalez (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1118, 1126

People v. Guzman (2005) 35 Cal.4th 577, 587 [inserting additional language into a statute violates the cardinal rule of statutory construction that courts must not add provisions to statutes]

Abstracts and Minutes, Elements of crime, Pleading, Sentencing

Case 000484

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court failed to award presentence conduct credits, and the abstract of judgment must be corrected (a) to show the correct section and description of the crime the jury convicted the defendant of in count 7, and (b) to delete the $10,000 restitution fine and the $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine that were waived by the court.

First Holding:

When the defendant is sentenced under section 667.61, the one strike law, the court need not grant such presentence conduct credit. But here it was error to deny the defendant credit for his presentence conduct under PC 667.61, because the People never invoked section 667.61 by alleging the strikable circumstances in the accusatory pleading. The lack of such notice precluded the trial court from sentencing the defendant subject to section 667.61. Further, such a sentencing scheme would have required the court to impose an indeterminate term, and it did not. The defendant was therefore entitled to an award of conduct credits at the rate of 15%, based on his conviction of violent felony.

Authority:

PEN 667.61

PEN 2933.1

People v. Govan (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 1015, 1036–1037

People v. Jimenez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 373, 393–397

Second Holding:

Though the information charged the defendant in count 7 with section 245 as assault with a deadly weapon (defendant’s hands and feet), the jury was instructed only as to section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury. The verdict form showed simply as charged under count 7 of the information. The jury could not have convicted the defendant of anything other than assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury because it was never instructed on any other crime for the purposes of count 7.

Thus, the verdict form’s reference to the erroneous charge is a clerical error rather than a reflection of the true verdict. We may correct a clerical error on a verdict form when the error does not reflect the jury’s actual verdict. The abstract lists the offense as section 245 assault with a deadly weapon. In light of the jury instruction and the verdict form, it must be corrected to reflect that the conviction was for section 245 as assault by means of force likely to cause great bodily injury.

Authority:

People v. Perez (2018) 4 Cal.5th 1055, 1065 [Hands and feet are not deadly weapons as a matter of law]

People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1026 [we presume the jury understood and followed instructions]

People v. Trotter (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 363, 370-371 [clerical correction to verdict forms after jury is discharged is not modification of verdict itself]

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [a reviewing court has the authority to correct clerical errors at any time]

Third Holding:

The trial court ordered direct restitution to the victim but waived the separate mandatory fines and fees. The abstract of judgment erroneously lists two fines: a $10,000 restitution fine and a $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine per section 1202.45. When the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment are inconsistent with one another, the oral pronouncement controls over the abstract of judgment. The abstract of judgment may be corrected at any time for accuracy.

On appeal, the Attorney General argues the abstract of judgment need not be amended because the fines have a mandatory minimum that can only be waived by a finding of compelling and extraordinary reasons, and the court’s reasoning here was insufficient. We need not reach this question. Any such argument was waived when the prosecutor did not object in the trial court.

Authority:

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

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

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185–188

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000470

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The abstract of judgment must be amended to make clear the trial court found an inability to pay fees and fines, and to provide the correct number of prejudgment credit days.

First Holding:

At sentencing, the trial court found that the defendant did not have the ability to pay the court fees. The abstract of judgment, however, imposes a court security fee of $200 and a criminal conviction assessment of $150. We will direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.

Authority:

People v. Costella (2017) 11 Cal.App.5th 1, 10

Second Holding:

Based on counsel’s representations, the court awarded credit for actual days served that was 30 days less than he actually served. Therefore, the court’s minute order should be corrected to reflect the proper number of credit days, and the abstract of judgment should be amended accordingly.

[GARY NOTE: The court did not cite any authority for this correction, but there is plenty. I have listed authority the court could have cited.]

Authority:

PEN 2900.5

People v. Chilleli (2014) 225 Cal.App.4th 581, 591 [The failure to properly calculate custody and conduct credit is a jurisdictional error that can be corrected at any time]

People v. Taylor (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 628, 647

People v. Acosta (1996) 48 Cal.App.4th 411, 428, fn. 8

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000467

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The trial court imposed a restitution fine of $400, believing that $400 was the minimum. The appellate court revised the judgment to impose the intended minimum restitution fine of $300.

First Holding:

The minimum restitution fine for a defendant convicted of a felony is $300.

Authority:

PEN 1202.4(b)(1)

Second Holding:

We may review an asserted legal error in sentencing for the first time on appeal even if the defendant did not object in the trial court. When sentencing error does not require additional evidence, further fact finding, or further exercise of discretion, the appellate court may modify the judgment appropriately and affirm it as modified.

Authority:

People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 594

People v. Haskin (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 1434, 1441