People v. Kindschy CA3

── People v. Kindschy CA3 ── Court: California Court of Appeal Date: June 05, 2026 Category: General Filed 6/5/26 P. v. Kindschy CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C101726 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 99F06914) v. CRAIG ALLEN KINDSCHY, Defendant and Appellant. Defendant Craig Allen Kindschy appeals a resentencing order made under Penal Code section 1172.75.1 He contends the trial court erred in “ ‘reaffirm[ing]’ ” a $1,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and corresponding $1,200 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) from his original 2001 conviction. This court granted defendant’s request to file supplemental briefing arguing that the restitution fine must be vacated because it is more than 10 years old. (§ 1465.9, subd. (d).) We agree and will vacate the fine. 1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code. 1  As to the parole revocation fine, in light of People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1 (Kopp), which was decided while this appeal was pending, we will remand for reconsideration of the parole revocation fine. We otherwise affirm the judgment. I. BACKGROUND Given the narrow nature of the contentions on appeal, we recite only the necessary relevant facts. In 2001, defendant was serving a 25-year-to-life sentence for a 1993 murder conviction in a Napa County case not at issue here. That same year, he was convicted of possession of unauthorized drugs in prison. (§ 4573.6.) The trial court sentenced defendant to six years in prison consecutive, including the low term of two years on the principal count, doubled due to a prior strike, and two 1-year prior prison term enhancements (§ 667.5, former subd. (b)). It also imposed a $1,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) and a corresponding $1,200 parole revocation fine (suspended unless parole is revoked) (§ 1202.45). Between 2011 and 2018, defendant had three additional felony convictions. Between 2016 and 2024, defendant had 14 prison rule violations, including two for possession of a deadly weapon and one in 2019 for attempted murder. In December 2023, defendant petitioned for resentencing, asking the trial court to strike the two prior prison term enhancements and his prior strike. During the July 2024 resentencing hearing, defendant additionally asked the trial court to waive all fines and fees because he was indigent. Defendant was incarcerated, not working, and had no discernable income or prospects for income. The prosecutor “underst[ood] [defendant’s] position” regarding the restitution and parole revocation fines but objected to waiving or staying the standard fines. 2  The trial court denied defendant’s Romero2 motion and struck the two prior prison term enhancements. The court “recogniz[ed]” that defendant had asked to have the fines stricken, but the court “decline[d] to exercise its jurisdiction to do so” and instead “reaffirm[ed]” the prior orders. Defendant timely appealed. II. DISCUSSION A. Restitution Fine Defendant argues the restitution fine must be vacated because more than 10 years have elapsed since the trial court imposed the fine. The People agree, and so do we. Effective January