Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ryan Heath Cupelli was convicted by a jury of second-degree murder on February 9, 2015, and the trial court found true that he had one prior strike conviction and one prior prison commitment. On February 6, 2015, the court imposed an indeterminate term of 30 years to life, plus one year for the prior prison term enhancement, along with a $200 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4.
On April 10, 2025, the trial court vacated Cupelli's sentence and conducted a resentencing hearing under section 1172.75. The court denied Cupelli's motion to strike his prior strike conviction pursuant to Romero, struck the prior prison term enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b), but reimposed an indeterminate term of 30 years to life on count 1 and reimposed the $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4. Cupelli filed a timely notice of appeal on April 10, 2025.
On April 10, 2026, Cupelli sent a letter requesting correction of the abstract of judgment, including removal of the restitution fine, but on April 20, 2026, the trial court issued an amended abstract of judgment that still included the fine. On appeal, Cupelli contended the $200 restitution fine had to be stricken under section 1465.9 because it was originally imposed more than 10 years ago. The People agreed with his position.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal agreed with both parties that the restitution fine had to be stricken. Effective January 1, 2025, Assembly Bill No. 1186 modified section 1465.9, and subdivision (d) now provides that upon the expiration of 10 years after the date of imposition of a restitution fine under 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 court noted there is no language in section 1465.9 limiting its relief in cases of resentencing, and because applying the amended statute involved statutory construction, review was de novo.
Applying the statute, the court observed that the trial court originally imposed the $200 restitution fine on February 6, 2015, which was 10 years and two months before the April 10, 2025 resentencing hearing. Because section 1465.9 mandates that the balance of any restitution fine imposed more than 10 years ago is unenforceable and must be vacated, the trial court erred by reimposing the fine at resentencing.
The court struck the $200 section 1202.4 restitution fine and directed the trial court to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward it to the appropriate entities. In all other respects, the judgment was affirmed.
Key Takeaways
- Under amended Penal Code section 1465.9, subdivision (d), a restitution fine imposed more than 10 years earlier is unenforceable and uncollectible, and the portion of the judgment imposing it must be vacated.
- The statute contains no limitation restricting its relief in resentencing proceedings, so a trial court errs by reimposing a restitution fine that is more than 10 years old at a resentencing hearing.
- Application of amended section 1465.9 presents an issue of statutory construction subject to de novo review on appeal.
- Where both the defendant and the People agree that a restitution fine must be stricken under the 10-year rule, the appellate court may strike the fine and order an amended abstract of judgment while affirming the judgment in all other respects.
Why It Matters
This opinion illustrates the practical effect of Assembly Bill No. 1186's amendment to Penal Code section 1465.9, which created a 10-year sunset on the enforceability of restitution fines imposed under section 1202.4. Trial courts conducting resentencing hearings must be attentive to the age of any restitution fine, because reimposing a fine that is more than a decade old constitutes reversible error.
The decision also confirms that the 10-year rule applies even when a case returns to the trial court for resentencing, since the statute contains no carve-out for resentencing proceedings. Defendants and practitioners should verify the original imposition date of any restitution fine before a resentencing hearing, as the passage of 10 years renders the fine unenforceable as a matter of law.