Background
In 2004, a jury convicted James Winter Thompson of second-degree robbery and assault with a deadly weapon after he bludgeoned a barbershop owner with a pipe and stole his jacket and cash. The jury found true enhancements for personal use of a deadly weapon and infliction of great bodily injury, along with two strike priors, two serious felony priors, and seven prison term priors. He was sentenced as a third-strike offender to 25 years to life for the robbery, consecutive to an 18-year determinate term, and the assault sentence was stayed under Penal Code section 654.
In 2023, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation identified Thompson as eligible for resentencing under section 1172.75. He asked the trial court to vacate the prison term enhancements, strike his prior strikes under Romero and section 1385, and dismiss the remaining enhancements, citing his age (then nearly 64), his rehabilitation programming, and the remoteness of his prior convictions. The People agreed the prison term enhancements should be vacated but opposed further reductions, pointing to his 12 felony convictions, prison rule violations, and a 2020 drug conviction while incarcerated.
At the March 2025 resentencing hearing, the trial court struck the four prior prison term enhancements but declined to dismiss the strike priors or any other enhancements, finding Thompson fell within the spirit of the Three Strikes Law. It resentenced him to 25 years to life consecutive to 14 years in prison and reimposed but stayed the fines and fees, including a $10,000 restitution fine and jail booking and classification fees. Thompson timely appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeal modified the judgment to vacate the $10,000 restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), because section 1465.9 makes such a fine unenforceable and subject to vacatur 10 years after imposition, and a section 1172.75 resentencing does not restart that clock. The court also vacated the $189.93 main jail booking fee and the $23.82 main jail classification fee under Government Code section 29550.2, which have been unenforceable since July 2021 under Government Code section 6111. The identical $10,000 parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45 remains imposed but suspended unless parole is revoked. As modified, the judgment was affirmed, and the trial court was directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment.
The court upheld the trial court's refusal to dismiss the two prior serious felony enhancements under section 1385, finding no abuse of discretion in the determination that dismissal would endanger public safety. Thompson's nearly forty-year chain of violent and drug-related criminality, his 2020 prison drug conviction, and his limited rehabilitation efforts supported that finding, and once a court makes an appropriate public safety finding, it need not weigh the enumerated mitigating circumstances.
The court rejected Thompson's argument that his 14-year determinate term consisting of enhancements had to be vacated because section 1170.1 applies only to determinate sentences. Under People v. Felix, determinate enhancements may attach to indeterminate terms, and each enhancement imposed here required a determinate term in addition to the indeterminate sentence for the robbery.
Key Takeaways
- Restitution fines imposed under Penal Code section 1202.4 become unenforceable and must be vacated 10 years after imposition under section 1465.9, and a section 1172.75 resentencing hearing does not restart that clock.
- Main jail booking and classification fees under Government Code section 29550.2 have been unenforceable since July 2021 and must be vacated under Government Code section 6111.
- A trial court does not abuse its discretion under section 1385 by refusing to dismiss enhancements when it finds dismissal would endanger public safety, even for an elderly defendant with rehabilitation efforts.
- Section 1170.1 applies only to determinate sentences; determinate enhancements may attach to indeterminate terms under People v. Felix.
- The parole revocation restitution fine under section 1202.45 is not vacated by section 1465.9 and remains imposed but suspended unless parole is revoked.
Why It Matters
The decision applies section 1465.9 and Government Code section 6111 to a defendant resentenced under section 1172.75, confirming that resentencing does not revive time-barred fines and fees, and it reinforces the deference appellate courts give to a trial court's public safety finding under section 1385 when deciding whether to dismiss enhancements.
It also confirms that determinate enhancements may attach to indeterminate sentences, rejecting a structural challenge to Thompson's sentence of 25 years to life plus a consecutive 14-year determinate term.
Read the full opinion (PDF) · Court docket