Error and/or relief
The court did not orally pronounce any fines or fees at sentencing, but the minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the imposition of a restitution fine, a stayed parole revocation fine, a court operations assessment, and a criminal conviction assessment. The abstract of judgment must be corrected.
First Holding:
Where there is a discrepancy between the oral imposition of sentence on the one hand and the minutes and abstract of judgment on the other, the oral judgment controls. An abstract of judgment must be corrected if it does not reflect the oral judgment accurately.
Authority:
People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185
People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385, 387-389
Second Holding:
The court did not orally pronounce any fines or fees at sentencing, but the minute order and abstract of judgment reflect the imposition of a $300 restitution fine, a $300 stayed parole revocation fine, a $40 court operations assessment, and a $30 criminal conviction assessment.
Authority:
PEN 1202.4
PEN 1202.45
PEN 1465.8
GOV 70373
Third Holding:
We decline to remand the matter because no party objected to the trial court’s failure to impose fines and fees at sentencing. All claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate its discretionary sentencing choices’ raised for the first time on appeal are not subject to review. Appellate courts may not correct a discretionary sentencing choice if the People failed to object at sentencing.
A restitution fine under section 1202.4 is a discretionary sentencing choice. And by waiving any objection to the restitution fine, the People also effectively waive any objection to the parole revocation fine, because the parole revocation fine must match the restitution fine as a matter of law.
As to the court operations assessment and the criminal conviction assessment, neither party asserts that the trial court’s failure to impose these fees was unauthorized or reflects an obvious legal error at sentencing that is correctable without referring to factual findings in the record or remanding for further findings.
Absent such an argument, we decline to disturb the judgment.
Authority:
People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 852-853
People v. Talibdeen (2002) 27 Cal.4th 1151, 1153
People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300, 303
People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354 [sentence is unauthorized if it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case]
People v. Kopp (2025) 19 Cal.5th 1, 30 [equal protection principles permit trial courts to waive fees under sec. 1465.8 and Gov. Code, sec. 70373, upon request, where defendant lacks ability to pay]
Authority:
ADD AUTHORITIES HERE