People v. Salazar CA4/1

Filed 1/29/26 P. v. Salazar CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE, D085650

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. SWF028526)

v.

RAYNALDO SALAZAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Riverside County, John M. Monterosso, Judge. Affirmed as modified. Lindsey M. Ball, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Rob Bonta, Attorney General, and Alana Cohen Butler, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

MEMORANDUM OPINION In 2011, a jury convicted Raynaldo Salazar of murder in the first

degree (Pen. Code,1 § 187, subd. (a)) and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person (§ 12021, subd. (a)(1)). The trial court sentenced Salazar to 51 years to life in state prison. Among other fines and fees, the trial court imposed a $200 restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b). In January 2025, the trial court resentenced Salazar pursuant to section 1172.75, striking an invalid prison prior enhancement. Without objection, the court reimposed the balance of the $200 restitution fine by giving “full force and effect” to the prior restitution order. In June 2025, Salazar sent a letter to the trial court informally requesting it vacate the restitution fine under section 1465.9, subdivision (d). The court issued a

minute order stating it would take no action on the request.2 Salazar appeals from the judgment following his 2025 resentencing under section 1172.75. He contends the trial court erred by including in the judgment the balance of a $200 restitution fine imposed at Salazar’s 2011 sentencing. In particular, he argues section 1465.9, subdivision (d) invalidates the balance of restitution fines 10 years after their imposition. The People concede error. We accept their concession and vacate the balance