Error and/or relief
The minute order and abstract of judgment erroneously indicates that the court imposed the parole revocation fine (PEN 1202.45) on the defendant, who was sentenced to a term of life without the possibility of parole. Because the parole revocation fine cannot be imposed on person sentence to LWOP, it must be stricken.
First Holding:
The trial court should not have imposed the challenged fines and respectfully request the court modify the judgment by striking them. The abstract must be corrected.
Authority:
PEN 1202.45
People v. Oganesyan (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1181–1182, 1185 [Section 1202.45 indicates that it is applicable to a person .whose sentence includes a period of parole]
Second Holding:
The defendant contends he is entitled to an additional day of actual presentence custody credit. The People concede he is correct. Although the defendant did not object at trial, forfeiture of sentencing only occurs when the alleged error involved an exercise of discretion. Because the calculation of credits is purely mathematical, his failure to object at trial does not preclude this court from correcting the error.
Authority:
People v. Aguirre (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 1135, 1139