Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. NCR68618, NCR70679
ROBIE , J.
Defendant Larry Richard Larrucea appeals after sentencing, contending the trial court improperly imposed a second restitution fine and court security fee. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Defendant pled guilty to transportation of crystalline methamphetamine in case No. NCR68618 (drug case). In exchange for his plea, an additional count and allegations of prior prison terms were dismissed. The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years, and imposed various fines and fees, including a $400 restitution fine, a $400 probation revocation restitution fine, stayed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.44, and a $20 court security fee.
Approximately six months after being granted probation in the drug case, defendant was charged in case No. NCR70679 (DUI case) with driving under the influence, having had three prior convictions for driving under the influence within the previous 10 years. It was also alleged defendant’s blood alcohol content exceeded .15 percent and that he had been driving on a suspended license. A petition for revocation of probation in the drug case was also filed, making these same general allegations, along with allegations that defendant had failed to contact and report to his probation officer.
Defendant pled guilty in the DUI case to driving under the influence and admitted the prior convictions for driving under the influence. He also admitted violating the terms of his probation in the drug case.
The trial court denied further probation and sentenced defendant to the upper term of four years in the drug case. Since defendant had not paid the fines previously imposed, the trial court reimposed the $400 restitution fine, lifted the stay on the $400 probation revocation fine, imposed a $400 parole revocation fine to be suspended unless parole is revoked, and the $20 court security fee. In the DUI case, the trial court sentenced defendant to the upper term of three years, staying all but one-third the middle term (eight months). The court also imposed a $400 restitution fine, a $400 parole revocation fine to be suspended unless parole is revoked, and a $20 court security fee.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends the trial court improperly imposed a second restitution fine and court security fee in the drug case when it sentenced him after he violated his probation. We find no error.
When defendant was placed on probation, the trial court imposed a $400 restitution fine, a $400 probation revocation restitution fine, stayed pending successful completion of probation, and a $20 court security fee. At the time of defendant’s sentencing after being found in violation of probation, defendant had not made any payments toward the previously imposed fines and fees. Accordingly, the trial court reimposed the $400 restitution fine and the $20 court security fee. The trial court also lifted the stay on the $400 probation revocation fine and imposed a $400 parole revocation fine to be suspended unless parole is revoked.
All of these fines and fees were appropriate and are properly reflected on the abstract of judgment. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the trial court did not impose two $400 restitution fines and two $20 court security fees in the drug case. The trial court merely reimposed the previously imposed, but unpaid, fine and fee. Accordingly, the abstract of judgment properly reflects imposition of a $400 restitution fine, a $400 probation revocation fine, a $400 probation revocation restitution fine (stayed pending successful completion of probation), and a $20 court security fee, in the drug case.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P.J., BUTZ , J.