Can a post-judgment motion to modify a restitution order be appealed?

In People v. Turrin (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1200 (Turrin), the defendant filed a motion in the trial court, 10 months after judgment was entered and while he was serving his sentence in state prison, seeking modification of three restitution fines. (Id. at p. 1203.) We held the trial court's order denying this motion was not an appealable post-judgment order because the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the restitution

Page 4

fines after execution of sentence had begun, and therefore, the order denying the motion did not affect the defendant's substantial rights. (Id. at p. 1208.) As we explained, a trial court generally lacks jurisdiction to resentence a criminal defendant after execution of sentence has begun. (Id. at p. 1204.) And while there are exceptions to this rule, i.e., (1) the "trial court may recall the sentence on its own motion within 120 days after committing a defendant to prison" under section 1170, subdivision (d), (2) the "trial court may correct a clerical error, but not a judicial error, at any time," and (3) "an unauthorized sentence may be corrected at any time," none of these exceptions applied in Turrin. (Id. at pp. 1204-1205.) First, the trial court "did not recall the sentence on its own motion and had no statutory authority to do so since section 1170, subdivision (d), requires the trial court to act within 120 days." Second, the defendant "did not seek correction of clerical error but instead he claimed judicial error." (Id. at p. 1206.) Finally, turning to the unauthorized sentence exception, we explained: "A defendant may not contest the amount, specificity, or propriety of an authorized order of a restitution fine for the first time on appeal [citing People v. Crittle (2007) 154 Cal.App.4th 368, 371; People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1468-1469] let alone in a motion to modify the same in the trial court after it has lost jurisdiction. Defendant is contesting the amount and propriety of an authorized order of a restitution fine. Section 1202.4, subdivision (b), authorized the amounts imposed here. And defendant's motion raised a factual question about his ability to pay, not a pure question of law. The unauthorized-sentence exception to loss of jurisdiction does not apply here." (Id. at p. 1207.)