Tag Archives: Restitution fine

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000649

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

In 2025, the trial court resentenced defendant pursuant to section 1172.75—striking the two prior prison term enhancements—and otherwise reimposed the prior judgment from 1996, including a $10,000 restitution fine. The trial court erred by reimposing the restitution fine and it must be vacated.

First Holding:

Section 1465.9(d) provides: “Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.” Resentencing does not reset the 10-year expiration of a section 1202.4 restitution fine.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

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

Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000647

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The court should have granted the defendant’s motion to vacate the restitution fine, which was more than 10 years old.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (Stats. 2024, ch. 805, sec. 1) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d). The statute now provides: “Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.”

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

Second Holding:

Defendant’s restitution fine was effectively vacated when section 1465.9(d) went into effect. The defendant’s motion, however, was filed a few months before the law took effect. For the statute to apply, it is not clear that a motion is even required, as the law declares the fine uncollectible and that any portion of a judgment imposing those fines is to be vacated. In the interests of judicial economy, we will direct the trial court to correct the abstract of judgment to reflect that the restitution fine has been vacated.

Authority:

In re Mattison (2025) 115 Cal.App.5th 1062, 1069

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

Case 000646

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court should have vacated the restitution fine, as it was more than 10 years old.

Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, AB 1186 (Stats. 2024, ch. 805, sec. 1) amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d). The statute now provides: “Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.” The resentencing pursuant to section 1172.75 did not restart section 1465.9’s 10-year clock anew.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

People v. Salstrom (2025) 117 Cal.App.5th 596, 600, review granted and briefing deferred on a different issue, March 11, 2026, S295038

Abstracts and Minutes, Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000643

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The defendant was resentenced under section 1172.75. The restitution fine must be vacated, as it is more than 10 years old. The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment accurately.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, the Legislature amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which states: “Upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to Section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated.” The fine in this case appears to have been imposed at the original sentencing in 1994, and must be vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1469.5

Second Holding:

Though the abstract of judgment from 1994 does not reflect whether the trial court imposed the mandatory minimum restitution fine under section 1202.4(b), we presume, as the People argue, the court did. Thus, the superior court’s order imposing the restitution fine at the defendant’s resentencing in 2024 essentially reimposed the fine imposed in 1994, which section 1465.9 has now made unenforceable and uncollectible. We construe the superior court’s order as simply reimposing the original restitution fine, and the 10-year clock did not start anew.

Authority:

EVID 664 [It is presumed that official duty has been regularly performed]

People v. Ramirez (2021) 10 Cal.5th 983, 1042 [we presume that the trial court knew the law and followed it in imposing a restitution fine under section 1202.4]

People v. Stowell (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1107, 1114 [a trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law]

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

Third Holding:

After imposing the $300 restitution fine, the superior court stated: “$300 parole revocation fine, that is stayed pending successful—Well, I am going to strike that. There is no parole that’s going to be granted in this case.” As noted, the minute order and abstract of judgment indicate the court (1) imposed and stayed execution of a parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 and (2) imposed and struck “all financial obligations, excluding any actual victim restitution.” The reporter’s transcript of the resentencing hearing does not state the court made these rulings. The superior court must correct the minute order and abstract of judgment to reflect the oral pronouncement of judgment.

Authority:

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 244 [Ordinarily, where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls]

People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2 [The record of the oral pronouncement of the court controls over the clerk’s minute order]

People v. Portillo (2023) 91 Cal.App.5th 577, 603 [the oral pronouncement of sentence controls over a subsequently entered minute order]

Fourth Holding:

Courts may correct clerical errors at any time, and appellate courts . . . have ordered correction of abstracts of judgment that did not accurately reflect the oral judgments of sentencing courts.

Authority:

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

People v. Jones (2012) 54 Cal.4th 1, 89

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 859

People v. Gobert (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 676, 689 [we must correct the discrepancy by ordering the trial court to modify the minute order]

Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000642

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the trial court erred by awarding fewer presentence conduct credits than ordered at the original sentencing, and the restitution fine must be vacated as it is now more than 10 years old.

First Holding:

Erroneous computation of presentence credits are subject to correction by the trial court or the appellate court when presented.

Authority:

People v. Guillen (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 756, 764

Second Holding:

The restitution fine was imposed at the time of the original sentencing in 1995. Section 1465.9(d) now 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)

Amelioration, Appellate Principles, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000635

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

The matter is remanded for the court to consider the recent decision in Kopp on the imposition of fines and fees, and also to conduct a full resentencing in light of this remand for resentencing.

First Holding:

Kopp clarified the standards applied when a defendant challenges the imposition of certain fines and fees on the grounds that they are unlawful because he cannot afford to pay them. We remand the matter to the trial court to apply those standards regarding its imposition of various fines and fees.

Authority:

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

Second Holding:

Because his conviction is not final on direct review, the defendant may be entitled to the benefit of various intervening changes in the law, including AB 333 (gang allegations) and the Racial Justice Act. AB 333, for example, limits what predicate offenses the People can now use to prove a group is a criminal street gang under Penal Code section 186.22.

On remand, the defendant can ask the trial court to provide relief under relevant intervening ameliorative sentencing laws, including but not limited to SB 81, 483, 567, and 1393; AB 333 and 518, as well as any appropriate challenges under the Racial Justice Act. But this court need not decide which intervening laws apply retroactively and whether their application requires any retrial or change in sentence.

Authority:

People v. Lamb (2024) 16 Cal.5th 400, 448

People v. Lopez (2025) 17 Cal.5th 388, 400

People v. Buza (2018) 4 Cal.5th 658, 693 [courts abide by a cardinal principle of judicial restraint—if it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more]

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

Case 000629

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At the resentencing hearing under section 1172.75, the superior court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b), that is no longer enforceable or collectible, and it imposed additional fines and fees that were not originally imposed and which came into effect after the defendant’s original sentencing. We modify the judgment by vacating the challenged fines and fees.

First Holding:

In 2021, the Legislature enacted SB (Stats. 2021 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.), retroactively invalidating prison prior enhancements imposed pursuant to section 667.5(b), except those that were based on a conviction for a sexually violent offense. Once the court verifies that the current judgment includes such a sentencing enhancement, the court shall recall the sentence and resentence the defendant. Resentencing under section 1172.75 is not limited to striking the section 667.5(b), enhancement. Rather, the court must conduct a full resentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 368, 373

People v. Rogers (2025) 108 Cal.App.5th 340, 348, fn. 5

People v. Gray (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 148, 163

People v. Burgess (2022) 86 Cal.App.5th 375, 381

People v. Garcia (2024) 101 Cal.App.5th 848, 855

Second Holding:

Our review of the imposition of fines and fees is de novo.

Authority:

People v. Arroyo (2016) 62 Cal.4th 589, 593 [de novo review in cases of statutory interpretation]

People v. Guillen (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 975, 983 [authority of trial court to impose fine or fees turns on relevant statutory provisions and presents essentially an issue of law]

Third Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to add subdivision (d), which provides that, on the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, the balance, including any collection fees, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those fines shall be vacated. The defendant was resentenced in November 2024, weeks before the effective date of the amendment. But the amendment applies retroactively to his sentence. The section 1202.4 restitution fine, which was imposed over 10 years ago in 2003, must therefore be vacated.

Authority:

PC 1465.9

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 748 [absent evidence to the contrary, we presume ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to all nonfinal judgments]

Fourth Holding:

The statute authorizing the remaining fines and fees did not become effective until after the defendant’s conviction. Accordingly, the superior court was not authorized to impose these fines and fees on resentencing.

Authority:

People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 754

People v. Castillo (2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1414

People v. Hayes (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1260, 1274 [A new statute is generally presumed to operate prospectively absent an express declaration of retroactivity or a clear and compelling implication that the Legislature intended otherwise]

Amelioration, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000620

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

At a full resentencing conducted while vacating the defendant’s one-year prior prison sentence enhancements pursuant to Penal Code section 1172.75, the trial court declined to consider whether two of defendant’s prior “strike” convictions were still valid under the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, denied his request to dismiss those strikes under section 1385, imposed a new 10-year criminal protective order, and re-imposed a $5,000 restitution fine.

The matter is reversed for the court to hold a full resentencing hearing and exercise its discretion on whether or not to strike the prior convictions. Further, the court had no jurisdiction to reimpose a restitution fine because it had been ordered more than 10 years earlier and was rendered expired.

First Holding:

Under section 1172.75, a defendant who is eligible to have a prior prison sentence enhancement stricken is entitled to a full resentencing, at which time the trial court is to apply any other changes in law that reduce sentences or provide for judicial discretion so as to eliminate disparity of sentences and to promote uniformity of sentencing.

Authority:

PEN 1172.75

People v. Espino (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 188, 193, 195, review granted* Oct. 23, 2024, S286987

[*Gary note: The Supreme Court issued its opinion in Espino on July 2, 2026, and affirmed the result in the Court of Appeal Espino decision–that a person is entitled to relief under section 1172.75 even if the punishment for the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement was stricken–resolving a question that was left unanswered in People v. Rhodius (2025) 17 Cal.5th 1050)]

People v. Green (2024) 104 Cal.App.5th 365, 373

Second Holding:

In Guevara, our Supreme Court held that a trial court engaged in a full resentencing under section 1172.75 of a person serving a life sentence under the Three Strikes Law must apply the Three Strikes Reform Act of 2012, including its provision according trial courts a discretionary override—as to defendants who would otherwise be eligible for relief—not to grant relief if the court determines that resentencing the defendant would pose an unreasonable risk of danger to public safety.

Authority:

People v. Superior Court (Guevara) (2025) 18 Cal.5th 838, 849-850

Third Holding:

Reversal and remand are necessary so that the trial court may consider whether the Reform Act would apply to the third-strike sentences imposed in this case and, if so, whether exercise of the court’s discretionary override is warranted. On remand, the court may also entertain any further requests to dismiss the prior strike convictions under section 1385(a)—but not under section 1385(c).

Authority:

People v. Burke (2023) 89 Cal.App.5th 237, 243-244

Fourth Holding:

However, the court may not impose a restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4(b) because the 2025 amendment to section 1465.9 provides that a restitution fine expires 10 years after the date of imposition. Because the restitution fine in this case was imposed over 25 years ago, it expired and may not be reimposed.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

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

Abstracts and Minutes, Fines and fees, Sentencing

Case 000596

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On resentencing under section 1172.75, the court ordered that the original fines and fees imposed nearly 30 years earlier would remain the same. They are ordered stricken.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended to provide 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. Accordingly, the portion of the judgment imposing the restitution fine is vacated.

Authority:

PEN 1465.9

Second Holding:

The $70 fee imposed for AIDS education must be vacated. The original sentencing court imposed this fee pursuant to section 264(b), which states in relevant part: The judge may assess a fine not to exceed $70 against a person who violates Section 261 or former Section 262 with the proceeds of this fine to be used in accordance with section 1463.23. Section 1463.23, however, was repealed effective January 1, 2018. The provision authorizing the AIDS education fee (sec. 264, subd. (b)) was impliedly repealed in 2018, when the referenced statute (sec. 1463.23) was actually repealed, since it is no longer possible for the proceeds of this fine to be used in accordance with section 1463.23. Accordingly, the AIDS education fee is vacated.

Authority:

Repeal of PEN 1463.23

Third Holding:

The abstract of judgment filed in 2024 does not reflect the restitution fine or the AIDS education fee. We further note that the sentencing minute order similarly does not refer to any fines and fees imposed. Nevertheless, it is well established that where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. Accordingly, the clerk of the superior court is ordered to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and an amended sentencing minute order reflecting that the previously imposed restitution fine and AIDS education fee are vacated.

Authority:

People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 260–261

Fines and fees, Retroactivity, Sentencing

Case 000587

Posted on by Gary McCurdy

Error and/or relief

On appeal from a hearing under section 1172.75, the appellate court struck the balance of the restitution fine as it was ordered more than 10 years prior to the resentencing.

First Holding:

Effective January 1, 2025, section 1465.9 was amended and now 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)

Second Holding:

Respondent asserts the trial court did not impose the restitution fine nor parole revocation fine at the time of resentencing and therefore it must be stricken for that reason. Generally, respondent is correct.

Authority:

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

People v. Frederickson (2020) 8 Cal.5th 963, 1027 [striking a restitution fine from the record and the abstract of judgment where the court failed to orally impose the fine during the sentencing hearing]

People v. Nilsson (2015) 242 Cal.App.4th 1, 34 [resentencing necessarily requires a court to impose a new sentence, including any fines, fees, and assessments]

People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 [the oral pronouncement of judgment controls]

Third Holding:

In this instance, however, the trial court merely reaffirmed the original judgment with the exception of striking the now-invalid prior prison term enhancement. The judgment following the resentencing is not yet final, we conclude appellant is entitled to have the restitution fine stricken. As appellant’s restitution fine was first imposed more than 10 years ago, it is now unenforceable and uncollectible under section 1465.9(d).

Authority:

PEN 1465.9(d)

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

In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 744–745 [absent evidence to the contrary, we presume ameliorative criminal statutes apply retroactively to all nonfinal judgments]

Fourth Holding:

Section 1465.9(d) does not apply to the parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. In Kopp, the court vacated any unpaid portion of the defendant’s restitution fine under section 1465.9(d), but nonetheless remanded the matter because a parole revocation fine is still required and was to be set in the same amount as the restitution fine would have been had the court properly considered the defendant’s ability to pay and stayed.

Further, section 1465.9 makes no mention of the parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45. We are not to insert a term that was not included in a statute or omit a term that has been included. Although a parole revocation fine is closely related to a restitution fine in that they must be imposed at the same time and in the same amounts, a parole revocation fine serves a different purpose, i.e., to deter a prisoner from violating parole, to incentivize a prisoner’s rehabilitation while on parole, and to recoup costs if parole is violated. That purpose is still relevant where, as here, an inmate might one day be paroled. No principle or authority supports vacating the parole revocation fine.

Authority:

People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 12, 24, 30

People v. Massicot (2002) 97 Cal.App.4th 920, 925

People v. Preston (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 415, 427, 429

Fifth Holding:

It was unnecessary for the trial court to recalculate the defendant’s credit for time served. The sentence from which this appeal was taken has not yet begun to be served, because it was ordered to run consecutive to the one he is currently serving from another county. Under other circumstances, a court may be required to calculate custody credits on a sentence imposed by another county. The present case presents does not present such a circumstance.

Authority:

People v. Phoenix (2014) 231 Cal.App.4th 1119, 1126 [in a determinate sentence case, sentencing court’s imposition of a consecutive sentence replaced another county’s sentence; the second county became the sentencing court]

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