Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
Solano County Super. Ct. Nos. 214729, 234099
McGuiness, P.J.
Keith Oneil Hayes, Jr., (appellant) appeals from a judgment entered after the trial court revoked his probation. His sole contention is that the court erred in increasing the restitution fund and probation revocation fines. Respondent concedes, and we agree, the court erred. We shall therefore reverse the order imposing increased fines, and in all other respects, affirm the judgment.
Factual and Procedural Background
On March 24, 2004, appellant was charged with numerous drug-related offenses in case No. 214729. On August 16, 2006, case No. 214729 was consolidated with a new case, No. 234099, in which appellant was charged with possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5, count one), transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a), count two), and two enhancements. Appellant entered no contest pleas to one count of sale of a controlled substance in case No. 214729 and to both counts and both enhancements in case No. 234099.
On October 10, 2006, imposition of sentence was suspended and appellant was placed on five years probation. The court ordered appellant to pay a restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) of $400 in each case as well as matching probation revocation fines of $400 that were to be stayed unless he was found in violation of probation (Pen. Code, § 12022.44).
A probation revocation hearing was held on June 9, 2008. The court found appellant in violation of his probation in each case, declined to reinstate him to probation, and imposed a total term of imprisonment of 11 years 4 months. The court also ordered appellant to pay a restitution fund fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) of $2,200 and a matching parole revocation fine of $2,200 that was to be stayed unless parole was revoked (Pen. Code, § 12022.45).
Discussion
Appellant contends the court erred in increasing the fines from $400 to $2,200 when it revoked his probation. Respondent concedes, and we agree, the increased fines were unauthorized.
In People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 821-822, the trial court imposed a $200 restitution fund fine when it granted the defendant probation, but later increased the fine to $500 when it revoked the defendant’s probation. The Court of Appeal held that because “there is no provision for imposing a restitution fine after revocation of probation,” (id. at p. 822) “the first restitution [fund] fine survived the revocation of probation, [and] the second restitution [fund] fine was unauthorized.” (Id. at p. 821.)
Similarly, here, because the $400 restitution fund fines that were originally imposed remained in effect after probation was revoked, the court was without authority to impose increased restitution fund fines at the time of final sentencing. Further, because related parole revocation fines must conform to restitution fund fines that are imposed, (see People v. Smith (2001) 24 Cal.4th 849, 853), the $2,200 parole revocation fines must also be reduced to $400. Appellant’s failure to object below does not preclude us from correcting these unauthorized fines. (People v. Chambers, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 823; see People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354.)
Disposition
The abstract of judgment shall be amended to reflect corresponding $400 fines under Penal Code sections 1202.4, subdivision (b), and 1202.45, in case Nos. 214729 and 234099. A copy of the amended abstract shall be forwarded to the Department of Corrections. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
We concur: Pollak, J. Siggins, J.