Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment mistakenly reflects that the trial court imposed financial obligations for court operations and conviction assessments and the abstract erroneously indicates the restitution fines were not stayed. It must be corrected.
First Holding:
The trial court stated a compelling reason for staying an otherwise mandatory restitution fine: any income the defendant earned would be better directed toward paying the direct restitution to the victim that the court did order.
Authority:
People v. Mercer (1999) 70 Cal.App.4th 463, 467 [we draw all inferences in favor of the judgment]
Second Holding:
The abstract of judgment shall be corrected to reflect that the trial court stayed the section 1202.4, subdivision (b), restitution fines, and the financial obligations from the court operations and conviction assessments shall be struck. (Gary note: the court cited no authority for ordering the correction of the abstract of judgment, but there are many cases it could have relied on. I have set forth a few below for your convenience.)
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