Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it contains several errors, including a representation that the court imposed a $300 restitution, contrary to the actual order.
First Holding:
The abstract of judgment reflects a $300 restitution fine under section 1202.4(b) and a $300 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 that were not orally imposed during the sentencing hearing. Under section 1202.4(b), the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so and states those reasons on the record.
Under section 1202.45, if a defendant’s sentence includes a period of parole or the defendant is subject to post-release community supervision or mandatory supervision, the court shall impose an additional fine in the same amount as the section 1202.4 fine.
The People did not object to the court’s failure to orally impose these fines. Because such fines are discretionary given the court’s ability to not impose them if it makes certain findings on the record, the People forfeited the imposition of the fines by not objecting. Accordingly, we direct those fines to be stricken.
Authority:
People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303
Second Holding:
The abstract of judgment reflects that the restitution fine was imposed, but it was not. The oral pronouncement controls, so we amend the abstract of judgment accordingly.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185, 188