People v. Tarkington CA2/3, B298503

In 1997 Anthony L. Tarkington was convicted of second degree murder with a weapon enhancement and sentenced under Three Strikes to 46 years to life; the trial court imposed a $10,000 restitution fine without objection.
Tarkington did not challenge the restitution fine on direct appeal; remittitur issued in October 1998.
In 2019, after People v. Dueñas, Tarkington filed a pro se motion seeking reconsideration of the $10,000 restitution fine and reduction to $200, arguing inability to pay and constitutional infirmities.
The trial court treated the filing as a petition for writ of habeas corpus and denied relief, citing lack of evidence at sentencing, forfeiture, and lack of abuse of discretion.
Tarkington appealed the denial. The Court of Appeal held the order was nonappealable and dismissed the appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court's denial of Tarkington's postjudgment motion/writ is appealable	People: Denial of habeas is not appealable; trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify sentence post-judgment	Tarkington: Order is appealable under §1237(b) or because restitution fine was an unauthorized sentence	Appeal dismissed: denial of habeas is not appealable; trial court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a post-judgment motion and exceptions did not apply
Whether the $10,000 restitution fine is invalid without an ability-to-pay finding (Dueñas claim)	Tarkington: Dueñas requires ability-to-pay determination; fine must be stayed or reduced	People: Claim forfeited because Tarkington failed to object at sentencing; fine was authorized when imposed	Held: Court did not reach the merits; alternatively, claim forfeited—fine was authorized in 1997 and not an "unauthorized sentence" that could be corrected anytime

People v. Dueñas, 30 Cal.App.5th 1157 (trial court must consider ability to pay before executing certain fines)
People v. Torres, 44 Cal.App.5th 1081 (trial court lacks jurisdiction to modify sentence after direct appeal concludes)
People v. Turrin, 176 Cal.App.4th 1200 (postjudgment motions to modify fines are barred where court lost jurisdiction)
In re G.C., 8 Cal.5th 1119 (unauthorized-sentence exception is narrow and applies only where sentence could not lawfully be imposed)
People v. Avila, 46 Cal.4th 680 (a restitution fine not shown to be beyond sentencing authority is not "unauthorized")
People v. Fares, 16 Cal.App.4th 954 (clerical or purely ministerial sentencing errors are correctable without time limitation)
People v. Karaman, 4 Cal.4th 335 (trial court generally lacks jurisdiction to modify sentence after execution begins)
In re Clark, 5 Cal.4th 750 (denial of habeas corpus is not appealable)