Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County Nos. SCD183595, SCS163138, Jeffrey F. Fraser, Judge.
O'ROURKE, J.
In 2001 in case No. SCS163138, Lasheba Arnnesa Love entered a negotiated guilty plea to petty theft with a prior theft conviction (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 666). The court placed her on three years' probation and imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)). In 2004 in case No. SCD183595, Love entered a negotiated guilty plea to assault with a deadly weapon with personal infliction of great bodily injury (§§ 245, subd. (a)(1), 12022.7, subd. (a)). The court revoked and reinstated probation in case No. SCS163138. In case No. SCD183595 it stayed execution of a five-year prison sentence (the two-year lower term for assault and three years for the enhancement), placed Love on five years' probation, and stayed a $200 restitution fine.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
The court revoked probation in both cases in 2007 and sentenced Love to prison in 2008, executing the sentence in case No. SCD183595 and imposing a concurrent two-year middle term in case No. SCS163138. In each case it imposed a $1,000 restitution fine, suspended a $1,000 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), and purported to lift a stay on a $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44).
Love appeals, contending the court erroneously increased the restitution fines and parole revocation fines when it sentenced her to prison in 2008. The People properly concede the point. (People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819; People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 921-922; People v. Johnson (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 284, 306-308.) Love also contends the 2008 imposition of the $200 probation revocation fines violated the ex post facto clause because her crimes occurred in 2001 (case No. SCS163138) and March 2004 (case No. SCD183595), before section 1202.44 became effective in August 2004. The People properly concede the point. (Cf. People v. Callejas (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 667 [parole revocation fine].)
We modify the judgment to reflect a $200 restitution fine and a $200 parole revocation fine in each case in place of the $1,000 fines and to delete the references to the $200 probation revocation fines.
DISPOSITION
In each case, the judgment is modified to reflect a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)) and a $200 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) in place of the $1,000 fines and to delete the reference to the $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44). The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment and forward it to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
WE CONCUR: BENKE, Acting P. J., McDONALD, J.