People v. Cannavan CA2/6

Filed 1/13/26 P. v. Cannavan CA2/6 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

THE PEOPLE, 2d Crim. No. B344153 (Super. Ct. No. 2017021278) Plaintiff and Respondent, (Ventura County)

v.

PATRICK ALLEN CANNAVAN,

Defendant and Appellant.

Patrick Allen Cannavan appeals from the trial court’s order denying his postjudgment motion to vacate a restitution fine. (Citing Pen. Code,1 § 1465.9.) We dismiss the appeal because the trial court’s order is not appealable. Factual and Procedural Background In February 2021, appellant was charged with multiple counts of committing lewd acts upon two different victims, both of

1 All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.

whom were under the age of 14. (§ 288, subds. (a), (b)(1), counts 1-6). Pursuant to a plea agreement, appellant pleaded guilty to committing a forcible lewd act on S.F., age nine (count 5) and a forcible lewd act on N.G., age 10 (count 6). (§ 288, subd. (b)(1).) The trial court accepted the terms of the plea agreement, imposed the midterm of eight years each on counts 5 and 6, and dismissed the remaining counts. Along with other fines and fees, the trial court ordered appellant to pay a $10,000 restitution fine. On appeal, we struck a $5,000 fine as unauthorized, reversed the $10,000 restitution fine, and remanded for resentencing for the trial court to exercise its discretion pursuant to section 288, subdivision (e)(1). We otherwise affirmed the judgment. (People v. Cannavan (Mar. 17, 2022, B311681) [nonpub. opn.].) In July 2022, following a letter from the Department of Corrections, appellant’s case returned to the trial court for sentence clarification. Appellate was represented by counsel. The trial court, in its discretion, imposed a $1,000 restitution fine and resentenced appellant to eight years consecutive on counts 5 and 6, for a total term of 16 years. In January 2025, appellant filed a motion, in propria persona, to vacate judgment of the court-imposed costs (fines and restitution) as “unenforceable and uncollectible.” (Citing § 1465.9.) The trial court denied the motion because it “offers no specific facts regarding the restitution, fines or fees that Petitioner was ordered to pay, and no errors have been identified.”