Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Super. Ct. Nos. SF08719A, SF083216A
MORRISON, J.
On February 6, 2001, the trial court granted defendant Frankie Garrett Moore probation in case No. SF080719A (“719A”) and imposed a $220 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). On February 4, 2002, the court granted defendant probation in case No. SF083216A (“216A”) and imposed a $200 restitution fine. On February 19, 2003, defendant admitted a probation violation in case No. 719A, probation was reinstated, and defendant was ordered to serve 120 days in county jail. Then, after admitting numerous probation violations, defendant’s probation was revoked in both cases and on June 6, 2006, he was sentenced to an aggregate term of three years in state prison.
On the record at the hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay a $220 restitution fine. The minute order from that hearing indicates the court ordered defendant to pay a $200 restitution fine. Where the minute order is at variance with the oral pronouncement of sentence, it is the oral pronouncement of sentence that controls. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471; People v. Rowland (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 119, 123.)
On appeal, defendant contends the trial court erroneously imposed additional restitution fines at the sentencing hearings on February 19, 2003, and June 6, 2006.
Section 1202.4, subdivision (b) requires the imposition of a restitution fine when a person is convicted of a felony, irrespective of any grant of probation. Where probation is granted, the restitution fine survives a subsequent revocation of probation. (People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 820 (hereafter Chambers).) Thus, imposition of a second, or duplicate, restitution fine upon revocation of probation is unauthorized and must be stricken, notwithstanding the absence of an objection at sentencing. (Id. at pp. 821-823; accord, People v. Arata (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 195, 201.)
We see no Chambers error in this record. Here, there was no indication that defendant paid anything on the previous fines and the abstract of judgment reflects only a $200 restitution fine under section 1202.4 in case No. 216A and a $200 restitution fine in case No. 719A. More importantly, there was no further oral pronouncement of a restitution fine at either the February 19 hearing, or the June 6 hearing. Rather, there are only minute orders generated by the clerk of the court that appear to be tracking the unpaid fines.
On the other hand, the abstract of judgment does not specify that the restitution fines were imposed at the time probation was granted, rather than when defendant was sentenced to prison. Accordingly, we conclude the abstract of judgment should be modified to clarify that the restitution fines were imposed at the time probation was initially granted in each case. The abstract of judgment also should be modified to reflect the court’s order that defendant pay a $220 restitution fine in case No. 719A.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court is directed to amend the abstract of judgment to reflect that a $220 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) was imposed in case No. 719A on February 6, 2001, and a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4) was imposed in case No. 216A on February 4, 2002. The trial court is directed to send a certified copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
We concur: SCOTLAND, P.J., SIMS, J.