Filed 9/18/24 P. v. Sigmund CA6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication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. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

PETER SIGMUND,

Defendant and Appellant.

 H051837

 (Santa Cruz County

 Super. Ct. Nos. F19709, F20357)

THE COURT1

Peter Sigmund challenges an order denying his motion to modify sentence and to 

vacate the court-ordered restitution fines pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 1869 and Penal 

Code section 1465.9.

2

 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm the order.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND3

In 2011, the Santa Cruz County Superior Court convicted Sigmund by plea in two 

separate actions. In case number F19709, he was convicted of six counts of lewd acts 

with a child (§ 288, subd. (a), counts 1-6, 8, 10-11), two counts of employment or use of 

a minor to perform prohibited acts (§ 311.4, subd. (c), counts 12-13), and one count of 

possession or control of matter depicting a minor engaging in or simulating sexual 

1 Before Greenwood, P. J., Grover, J., and Danner, J.

2 Undesignated statutory references are to the Penal Code.

3 We omit the facts of the offense as they are not relevant to the analysis and 

disposition of the appeal.
2

conduct (§ 311.11, subd. (a), count 14). In case number F20357, he was convicted of two 

counts of distributing lewd materials to a minor (§ 288.2, subd. (a), counts 2, 6) and two 

counts of lewd acts with a child (§ 288, subd. (a), counts 3, 4).

The trial court sentenced Sigmund to serve an aggregate 25-year prison term. In 

case number F19709, the court ordered him to pay $5,000 in restitution fines pursuant to 

section 1202.4, subdivision (b), payable forthwith pursuant to section 2085.5, $5,000 in 

restitution fines pursuant to section 1202.45, subdivision (b), suspended unless parole 

was revoked, and $7,841 in restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (f), 

payable directly to the specified victims. In case number F20357, the court ordered him 

to pay $960 in restitution fines pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), payable per

section 2085.5, $960 in restitution fines pursuant to section 1202.45, subdivision (b), 

suspended unless parole was revoked, and $75 in restitution pursuant to section 1202.4, 

subdivision (f), payable directly to the specified victims. The court did not impose an 

administrative fee under section 1202.4 or 2805.5 for the collection of any of the 

restitution fines. 

In 2023, Sigmund filed a motion to modify his sentence and vacate the restitution 

fines. He argued that the restitution fines were no longer enforceable under section 

1465.9. He also claimed that the trial court imposed the fines without determining his 

ability to pay as required by Government Code section 13967 et seq., and violated his 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights in doing so. 

The trial court denied Sigmund’s request to vacate or modify the restitution fines. 

It determined that section 1465.9 did not list the restitution fines under section 1202.4, 

subdivision (b) as unenforceable or uncollectible. It found that the victim restitution fines 

were not subject to an ability to pay finding pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (g).4 

4 At the time of sentencing, section 1202.4, subdivision (g) provided, “The court 

shall order full restitution unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not 

doing so, and states those reasons on the record. A defendant’s inability to pay shall not 
3

Finally, it ruled that Sigmund had forfeited any challenge to the restitution fines imposed 

at the time of sentencing based on ability to pay, and included a general reference to 

People v. Gutierrez (2019) 35 Cal.App.5th 1027, 1033 [addressing forfeiture in sentences 

imposing restitution fines prior to 2019]. 

On appeal, counsel filed an opening brief pursuant to People v. Delgadillo (2022) 

14 Cal.5th 216 (Delgadillo). We notified Sigmund that he could file a supplemental brief 

on his own behalf, and that failure to do so would result in the dismissal of the appeal as

abandoned. (Id. at p. 232.) Sigmund filed a timely supplemental brief.

II. DISCUSSION

In his supplemental brief, Sigmund contends that California Assembly Bill 

No. 1869 (2019-2020 Reg. Sess.) reflects the Legislature’s intent to render unenforceable 

and uncollectible the restitution orders entered by the trial court in his case. He claims 

the trial court erred in finding that section 1465.9 does not apply to the restitution at issue 

in his cases. Sigmund further contends the trial court erred in finding that the restitution 

fines were not subject to an ability to pay finding, and that he forfeited any such 

challenge when he failed to raise it at the time of sentencing. 

Sigmund does not raise any arguable issues on appeal. An issue is arguable if it 

has a reasonable potential for success, and, if resolved favorably for the appellant, the 

result will either be a reversal or a modification of the judgment. (People v. Johnson 

(1981) 123 Cal.App.3d 106, 109.)

Effective July 1, 2021, Assembly Bill No. 1869 abrogated the authority of courts 

to impose and collect 23 different court-imposed costs, by adding section 1465.9 to the 

Penal Code, and section 6111 to the Government Code. (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, §§ 11, 62.) 

The Legislature then passed Assembly Bill No. 177, which took effect on January 1,

be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution order, 

nor shall inability to pay be a consideration in determining the amount of a restitution 

order.” (Stats. 2011, ch. 358, § 1.)
4

2022. Prior to the enactment of Assembly Bill No. 177, sections 1202.4, subdivision (l),

and 2085.5 permitted the imposition of various administrative fees associated with the

collection of the restitution fine. Assembly Bill No. 177 repealed and then re-enacted

section 1202.4, eliminating former subdivision (l), which authorized county

administrators to impose an administrative fee to cover the costs of collecting the

restitution fine. (Stats. 2021, ch. 257, §§ 19, 20.) Assembly Bill No. 177 also repealed 

the administrative fees that could be imposed pursuant to section 2085.5, but left intact 

the provisions allowing prison and jail administrators to deduct a percentage of wages 

earned by inmates as payment of restitution fines. (Compare Stats. 2016, ch. 718 [former 

§ 2085.5, subd. (e)] with Stats. 2021, ch. 257, § 37.) Finally, Assembly Bill No. 177 

amended section 1465.9 to render unenforceable and uncollectible the balance of any 

court-imposed costs under sections 1202.4 and 2085.5. (Stats. 2021, ch. 257, § 35.)

Here, the court did not impose any administrative fees or costs related to the

collection of the restitution it ordered Sigmund to pay. The abstracts of judgment 

indicate that the court imposed, between the two actions, $5,960 in restitution fines under 

section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and $7,916 in restitution under section 1202.4, 

subdivision (f), both of which, under section 2085.5, may be collected by deducting from

the wages and trust account of a prisoner. (§ 2085.5, subds. (a), (c).) That procedure 

remains valid and unaffected by Assembly Bill No. 1869 and Assembly Bill No. 177. In 

Assembly Bill No. 1869, the Legislature set forth its intent “to eliminate the range of 

administrative fees that agencies and courts are authorized to impose to fund elements of 

the criminal legal system and to eliminate all outstanding debt incurred as a result of the 

imposition of administrative fees.” (Stats. 2020, ch. 92, § 2.) The restitution orders at 

issue in Sigmund’s case do not include administrative fees. Accordingly, Sigmund’s

contentions regarding the effect of Assembly Bill No. 1869 on his restitution fines are not 

arguable.
5

Nor has Sigmund raised an arguable issue regarding the trial court’s alleged failure 

to consider his ability to pay in ordering him to pay the restitution fines. Sigmund does 

not address in his supplemental brief the trial court’s determination that he forfeited any 

available challenge to those fines imposed at the time of sentencing based on his ability 

to pay. While this court is required to evaluate the specific arguments Sigmund presented 

in his supplemental brief, we are not required to independently review the record to 

identify unraised issues. (Delgadillo, supra, 14 Cal.5th at p. 232.) Thus, even if he is 

correct that he was entitled to a hearing on his ability to pay, or that the trial court failed 

to hold such a hearing at the time of sentencing, he has not raised any argument 

concerning the trial court’s ultimate determination that he had forfeited any challenge on 

that basis.

Because Sigmund raises no arguable issue in his supplemental brief, we must 

affirm the order denying his motion to vacate the restitution fine. (People v. Serrano 

(2012) 211 Cal.App.4th 496, 503-504.)

III. DISPOSITION

The January 23, 2024 orders denying the motion to modify sentence and to vacate 

restitution fine are affirmed.