Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. 04F06569, 04F07448
OPINION
RAYE, J.
Defendant Kevin Kennedy entered a negotiated no contest plea to a charge he conspired to commit the crime of pimping. He received a three-year prison sentence.
Although the trial court imposed no restitution fines at sentencing, the sentencing minutes and abstract of judgment reflect a $600 restitution fine (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) and a $600 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45).
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
Defendant contends the restitution fines are error, because the trial court never imposed them. The Attorney General agrees.
What remains in dispute is the remedy: defendant contends we should simply reduce these mandatory fines to the statutory minimum of $200 each, while the Attorney General asks that we remand the matter to the trial court to determine whether the $600 restitution fines should be reduced or imposed.
Under the circumstances, we choose the remedy urged by defendant. To avoid (among other evils) “the anomaly of restitution fines costing more money than they generate,” it is appropriate for an appellate court to impose the statutory minimum restitution fine when the trial court has failed to refer to any restitution fine at sentencing. (Cf. People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, 1029, citing People v. Vasquez Diaz (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1310, 1316.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reduce the $600 restitution fine to $200 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and to reduce the $600 parole revocation fine to $200 (§ 1202.45). As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to issue an
amended abstract of judgment and to forward a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J., NICHOLSON, J.