People v. Chaidez CA3

── People v. Chaidez CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: April 22, 2026 Category: General Filed 4/22/26 P. v. Chaidez CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) THE PEOPLE, C103327 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. Nos. 88720, v. 88721) ROBERTO CHRISTIAN CHAIDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Roberto Christian Chaidez appeals from the trial court’s denial of his postconviction motion under Penal Code section 1465.9 to strike restitution fines.1 Even though this is not Chaidez’s first appeal of right, his appellate counsel filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436, raising no issues and asking us to independently review the record. Because we conclude the trial court’s order is not appealable, we will dismiss the appeal. BACKGROUND In 1989, Chaidez was convicted by a jury of first degree burglary (§ 459), child endangerment (§ 273a), vehicle theft (Veh. Code, § 10851), leaving the scene of an accident (Veh. Code, § 20002, subd. (a)), and two counts of receiving stolen property 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1 (§ 496) in case Nos. 88720 and 88721. The jury sustained allegations that Chaidez committed a felony while released from custody (§ 12022.1) and had suffered a prior serious felony conviction (§ 667, subd. (a)). The trial court sentenced him to 15 years eight months in state prison. The court also ordered Chaidez to pay restitution to the victim in the amounts of $250 in case No. 88720 and $350 in case No. 88721 as well as restitution fines of $3,050 in case No. 88720 and $2,250 in case No. 88721 pursuant to section 2085.5 and former Government Code section 13967. In January 2025, Chaidez, proceeding in propria persona, filed a “Petition to Recall Sentence and Resentence in Accordance [with] Assembly Bill 1186 [to] Eliminate/Terminate Restitution Fin[e]s over 10 Years Old.” (Some capitalization omitted.) He asked the court to eliminate restitution fines that were over 10 years old in case Nos. 88720 and 88721 under Assembly Bill No. 1186 (2023-2024 Reg. Sess.) (Stats. 2024, ch. 805, § 1). Effective January 1, 2025, the enactment amended section 1465.9 to add subdivision (d), which now 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.” Chaidez also argued that “inability to pay any restitution consideration was never afforded” to him. (Capitalization omitted.) The trial court denied Chaidez’s petition, stating: “The court did not impose a restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). The defendant received a sentence in these cases on Septembe[r] 1, 1989. The court imposed fines under Government Code section 13967. However, this section was rep[]ealed in 2003. Thus, the change in the law does not apply to the defendant’s case.” Chaidez timely appealed. 2  DISCUSSION Before we may consider the merits of Chaidez’s appeal, we must f