In re ROBIN MATTISON on Habeas Corpus. (Cal. Ct. App., Nov. 7, 2025, No. E085614) 2025 WL 3122934, at *1–2
Summary: A new statute that makes a criminal defendant’s restitution fine uncollectible 10 years after imposition does not require full resentencing because his sentence, is altered,
BACKGROUND
In 2008, a jury convicted Mattison of two counts of attempted first degree murder, three counts of attempted murder of police officers, infliction of corporal injury on a cohabitant, and attempted arson. The trial court imposed an $8,000 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4.
The Legislature recently enacted law that makes a fine “unenforceable” after 10 years and any portion of a judgment imposing that fine is “vacated” at that time. (§ 1465.9, subd. (d).) Section 1465.9, subdivision (d) (§ 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.” The amended law was effective January 1, 2025.
Restitution
Convicted criminals may be required to pay one or more of three types of restitution: a “ ‘restitution fine’ ”; restitution directly to the victim; or restitution as a condition of probation. (People v. Giordano (2007) 42 Cal.4th 644, 651-652.) At issue here is the restitution fine, imposed on nearly every convicted defendant and paid into a statewide pool used to compensate victims. (§ 1202.4, subds. (a)(3), (b), (c), (e).)
It had been more than 10 years since the trial court, imposing Mattison’s 2008 judgment, required him to pay an $8,000 restitution fine. Under section 1465.9(d), any uncollected balance of that fine is “unenforceable and uncollectible” and that portion of the judgment “shall be vacated.” (§ 1465.9(d).)
“[I]n a criminal case, judgment is rendered when the trial court orally pronounces sentence.” (People v. Karaman (1992) 4 Cal.4th 335, 344, fn. 9.) “[A]n abstract of judgment is not the judgment of conviction; it does not control if different from the trial court’s oral judgment.” (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185 (Mitchell).)
No Full Resentencing Is Warranted when vacating restitution
The “full resentencing rule” is present in terms of appellate procedure. “When part of a sentence is stricken on review,” on remand “ ‘a full resentencing as to all counts is appropriate, so the trial court can exercise its sentencing discretion in light of the changed circumstances.’ ” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 893 (Buycks).) The reason for the full resentencing rule is that “ ‘ “an aggregate prison term is not a series of separate independent terms, but one term made up of interdependent components. The invalidity of one component infects the entire scheme.” ’ ” (People v. Terwilligar (2025) 109 Cal.App.5th 585, 601 (Terwilligar).)
The same rule applies to “statutes addressing recalled sentences.” (Buycks, supra, 5 Cal.5th at p. 893.) When a sentence is recalled after judgment, “the resentencing court has jurisdiction to modify every aspect of the sentence, and not just the portion subjected to the recall.”
However, not every correction to a sentence means a recall of the sentence. When a trial court corrects an abstract of judgment to conform to the judgment, the sentence is not recalled and no resentencing occurs. For instance, when an abstract of judgment does not accurately reflect the fines imposed, the trial court simply corrects the abstract to conform to the judgment. People v. Codinha (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 976, 985-986 [correction of clerical error does not permit resentencing].)
Section 1465.9(d) does not trigger the full resentencing rule in declaring the restitution fine portion of the judgment vacated. It vacates that portion of the judgment as if the trial court had orally pronounced as much. It simply requires correction of the abstract of judgment to conform it to the judgment, to show that the portion of the judgment that eliminates the now-unenforceable restitution fine is vacated.
Mattison file a habeas petition but that is unavailable because he has an adequate legal remedy. (In re Cook (2019) 7 Cal.5th 439, 452.) A motion to correct the abstract of judgment is an available remedy.
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.