Error and/or relief
The abstract of judgment must be corrected to reflect the oral judgment on the parole revocation restitution fine.
First Holding:
Though the court imposed the minimum restitution fine, it made no mention of the parole revocation restitution fine, yet the abstract of judgment reflected that it was imposed. The parole revocation fine was erroneously included in the abstract of judgment because that fine was not part of the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment. The People concede the error. We accept the concession and shall order the parole revocation fine stricken from the abstract of judgment.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. El (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 963, 967
Second Holding:
Since the defendant did not specifically object to imposition of the assessments based on ability to pay, he forfeited the right to challenge those assessments on appeal.
Authority:
People v. Ramirez (2023) 98 Cal.App.5th 175, 224-225
People v. Wilson (2023) 14 Cal.5th 839, 867