Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment must be corrected because it mistakenly reflects a $300 restitution fine under section 1202.4 that was not orally imposed by the trial court. The $300 parole revocation fine imposed by the court under section 1202.45 should be stricken.
First Holding:
The parties stipulated that defendant lacked the ability to pay the $300 restitution fine under section 1202.4, and the court did not impose that fine. The restitution fine reflected in the abstract of judgment should therefore be deleted.
(Gary note: The court did not cite any authority for its order that the abstract of judgment be modified. I have set forth some of the cases that court could have cited.)
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Delgado (2008) 43 Cal.4th 1059, 1070
People v. Leon (2020) 8 Cal.5th 831, 855
In re Black (1967) 66 Cal.2d 881, 890
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385
People v. Farell (2002) 28 Cal.4th 381, 384, fn. 2
Second Holding:
The trial court should not have imposed the parole revocation fine under section 1202.45. Under that section, when a court imposes a restitution fine under section 1202.4, and the sentence includes a period of parole, a parole revocation fine must also be imposed and suspended in the same amount as the section 1202.4 restitution fine. (.) Here, as noted, the court did not impose a restitution fine in any amount and therefore it should not have imposed the parole revocation fine under section 1202.45.
Authority:
PEN 1202.45
People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852