People v. Stewart CA3

Filed 3/30/26 P. v. Stewart CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published,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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C102950

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 00F08190)

v.

JAREY NEIL STEWART,

Defendant and Appellant.

In 2001, a jury found defendant Jarey Neil Stewart guilty of multiple sexual offenses. The jury also found true a one-year prior prison term enhancement. (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b).)1 The trial court sentenced defendant to a term of 135 years to life plus 6 years in prison. In 2025, the trial court resentenced defendant under section 1172.75 because his judgment included a now-invalid prior prison term enhancement. (§ 1172.75, subd. (a).) At resentencing, the trial court struck the prior prison term enhancement and resentenced defendant to a term of 135 years to life plus 5 years.

1 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

1

On appeal, defendant argues, and the People agree, that the trial court erroneously failed to vacate the balance of defendant’s restitution fine (§ 1202.4) as required under section 1465.9, subdivision (d). Defendant further claims the trial court erred when it failed to (1) vacate the parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) from the underlying judgment and (2) vacate a restitution fine (§ 1202.4) in a separate case that was not listed in his notice of appeal (Sacramento Sup. Ct., case No. 94F02221, hereinafter case No. 2221). We agree with the parties that the remaining balance of defendant’s restitution fine in the instant case must be vacated pursuant to section 1465.9, subdivision (d). We will order the restitution fine in the instant case vacated, in all other respects, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND We omit a discussion of the facts underlying defendant’s conviction because they are not relevant to the issues raised on appeal. In 2001, a jury convicted defendant of “three counts of lewd and lascivious conduct (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (a)), one count of aggravated lewd and lascivious conduct (Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1)), and one count of aggravated sexual assault (Pen. Code, § 269, subd. (a)(4)). He was sentenced under both the one strike law (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subd. (b)) and the three strikes law (Pen. Code, § 667 subds. (b)-(i)) to three consecutive indeterminate terms of 15 years to life, each tripled to 45 years to life (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (e)(2)(A)(i)). A fourth indeterminate term of 15 years to life, tripled to 45 years to life, was ordered to be served concurrently. [The] sentence for the remaining offense was stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 654. He also received determinate terms of five years for a prior serious felony conviction (Pen. Code, § 667, subd. (a)) and one year for a prior prison term (Pen. Code, § 667.5, subd. (b)). Defendant’s aggregate term was thus 135 years to life, plus six years.” (People v. Stewart (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 163, 166.) In 2023, the trial court issued an order indicating defendant was a person in the custody of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, serving a prison term for a