Case Name: People v. Murphy, Case #: A172224,
Court: CA Court of Appeal, District: 1 DCA, Division: 3, Opinion Date: 11/21/2025
In short, a court may not rely on unpaid victim restitution to deny either an expungement and reduction under PC 1203.4 or a reduction to a misdemeanor under PC 17. PC 1203.4(c)(3)(C) and PC 17(f) prohibit using unpaid restitution as “grounds for denial,” and here the court emphasized the outstanding restitution in denying both forms of relief, requiring remand for reconsideration.
Introduction
The California Legislature, in enacting Senate Bill 1106, established a clear mandate: the inability to satisfy a restitution order must not serve as a barrier to rehabilitation or reentry. This principle is codified in Penal Code sections 1203.4(c)(3)(C) and 17(f), which explicitly state that unfulfilled restitution "shall not be grounds for denial" of a petition for expungement or reduction. Recently, in People v. Murphy (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 611, the Court of Appeal confirmed that this language plainly prohibits trial courts from relying on unpaid restitution as a basis for denying relief—not only as a sole factor but as any factor at all. In Murphy, the court reversed a denial because the trial judge improperly weighed the defendant’s outstanding debt against their request for relief, holding that such consideration constitutes a legal error and an abuse of discretion. Consequently, because the Petitioner here has met all other statutory requirements, this Court must grant the requested relief without regard to any outstanding restitution balance.
Key Legal References for Drafting a Motion on this Restitution point
Any attorney drafting a motion related to restitution should cite these specific sections and cases to strengthen the argument:
- People v. Murphy (2025) 114 Cal.App.5th 611: The primary case holding that courts cannot use unpaid restitution "in any way" as a basis for denial.
- Penal Code § 1203.4(c)(3)(C): Prohibits denial of expungement due to unpaid restitution.6
- Penal Code § 17(f): Prohibits denial of a felony-to-misdemeanor reduction due to unpaid restitution.7
- Senate Bill 1106 (Stats. 2022, ch. 734): The legislative act that amended these codes to ensure that "expungement should be accessible to people who have been ordered to pay direct restitution."
=========================================================================
COURT CASE SUMMARY: People v. Murphy
Hayley Mackenzie Murphy moved to expunge her conviction under Penal Code section 1203.4 (undesignated statutory references are to this code) and reduce her felony conviction to a misdemeanor under section 17.1 The trial court denied her motion. In her appeal, she contends the court erred by relying — despite language in section 1203.4, subdivision (c)(3)(C) (section 1203.4(c)(3)(C)) and section 17, subdivision (f) (section 17(f)) — on unpaid restitution to deny her requests. Those provisions provide that “an unfulfilled order of restitution” or “unpaid order of restitution” “shall not be grounds for denial” of such requests.
This language, she argues, plainly prohibits courts from relying on unpaid restitution to deny requests for expungement and reduction. We agree and reverse.
DISPOSITION:
The trial court’s order denying Murphy’s petition for relief under sections 1203.4 and 17 is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in light of this opinion.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDITOR's NOTE: This may be an interesting case for arguments to put forth at a Parole Hearing for inmates that are being Denied a parole release for avoiding restitution. It would need to be a creative argument in front of the Board Of Parole Hearings (BPH).
FOR FULL OPINION: Note this link will eventually be obsolete from the Court. Download the case, to preserve the case on your device. There will be a Redirect Notice to this court website.
