Opinion
B328880
06-27-2024
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. KENYATA BLAKE, Defendant and Appellant.
Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steve D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Nicholas J. Webster, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, No. BA433216 Mark S. Arnold, Judge. Dismissed.
Jolene Larimore, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey, Assistant Attorney General, Steve D. Matthews, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Nicholas J. Webster, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
ZUKIN, J.
INTRODUCTION
Defendant Kenyata Blake appeals following the trial court's denial of a postjudgment motion to vacate a victim restitution fine imposed at a previous sentencing. Because the trial court's order is not appealable, we dismiss the appeal.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In April 2019, a jury found Blake guilty of first degree murder (Pen. Code, § 187) and two counts of second degree robbery (§ 211). As to the murder, the jury found true the felony murder special circumstance allegation (§ 190.2, subd. (a)(17)) and the enhancement that Blake personally used a dangerous and deadly weapon (§ 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The trial court sentenced Blake to an overall term of imprisonment for life without the possibility of parole, plus a consecutive determinate term of four years, in state prison. Blake was ordered to pay a $5,000 victim restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), $300 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), $300 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), $120 in court operations assessments (§ 1465.8), and $90 in criminal conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated.
On appeal, this court modified clerical errors in the abstract of judgment and in all other respects affirmed the judgment. (People v. Blake (Dec. 8, 2020, B298188) [nonpub. opn.].)
In 2023, Blake, in pro. per., filed a "motion to vacate judgment of court imposed costs (fines and restitution) pursuant to Penal Code section 1465.9."This provision was enacted by Assembly Bill No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.), and amended by Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) and Assembly Bill No. 199 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.). (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 62; Stats. 2021, ch. 257, § 35; Stats. 2022, ch. 57, § 21.) Section 1465.9 provides that the balance of any of the enumerated court-imposed costs or fines is unenforceable and uncollectible, and that the portions of any judgment imposing such costs or fines must be vacated. (§ 1465.9, subds. (a)-(c).) According to a minute order, the trial court granted the motion, in part, by vacating the restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), court operations assessments (§ 1465.8), and criminal conviction assessments (Gov. Code, § 70373). The court denied the motion as to the victim restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)), which was to "remain[] in full force and effect."
This motion is not included in the record on appeal.
Blake timely appealed.
DISCUSSION
Blake contends the trial court erred in denying his motion to vacate the victim restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (f)). However, Blake has filed an appeal from a nonappealable order, thereby depriving this court of jurisdiction in the first instance.
Here, there is no indication that the law has changed in a way that would allow Blake to seek a reduction or reversal of his victim restitution fine. Section 1465.9, which Blake cited in his motion in the trial court, provides relief from certain administrative fees imposed on criminal defendants (see People v. Clark (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 248, 259-260), but does not abolish victim restitution fines.
Assembly Bill No. 177 (2021-2022 Reg. Sess.) amended section 1465.9 to provide that, "[o]n and after January 1, 2022, the balance of any court-imposed costs pursuant to [s]ection . . . 1202.4 . . . as [that] section[ ] read[s] on December 31, 2021, shall be unenforceable and uncollectible and any portion of a judgment imposing those costs shall be vacated." (§ 1465.9, subd. (b).) But the Legislature's purpose in enacting this statute was "to eliminate the range of administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of the criminal legal system and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the imposition of administrative fees." (Stats. 2021, ch. 257, § 2.) As part of this legislation, the Legislature repealed a provision allowing county boards of supervisors to "impose a fee to cover the actual administrative cost of collecting the restitution fine" (former § 1202.4, subd. (1)), while leaving the rest of section 1202.4 intact. As such, there is no indication that the Legislature meant to provide relief from the victim restitution fine challenged by Blake in his motion before the trial court.
In sum, the trial court's order is not appealable, and we must therefore dismiss the appeal.
DISPOSITION
The appeal is dismissed.
WE CONCUR: CURREY, P. J. COLLINS, J.