Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Stanislaus County Super. Ct. Nos. 1076987 & 1218946, John G. Whiteside, Judge.
Deborah Prucha, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Attorney General, Dana R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Lloyd G. Carter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Harris, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Cornell, J.
INTRODUCTION
On September 1, 2004, appellant, Genevieve Abiline Ramirez, pled no contest in Stanislaus Superior Court case No. 1076987 to petty theft with a prior qualifying conviction (Pen. Code, § 666). The court placed Ramirez on probation and imposed a $200 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b). On November 21, 2006, Ramirez was charged in Stanislaus Superior Court case No. 1218946 with robbery (§ 211) and grand theft (§ 487, subd. (a)). The People also filed a notice to revoke Ramirez’s probation in case No. 1076987 due to the new criminal allegations.
All further statutory references are to the Penal Code.
On January 18, 2007, Ramirez pled no contest to grand theft. The robbery allegation was dismissed. Ramirez admitted she violated her probation in case No. 1076987. Based on Ramirez’s admission, the court revoked probation in case No. 1076987. Pursuant to the plea agreement, the court sentenced Ramirez to a prison term of two years for grand theft and to a consecutive term of eight months for the petty theft conviction. The court further ordered that Ramirez pay a restitution fine.
On March 19, 2007, the court denied Ramirez’s request to withdraw her plea. Ramirez informed the court that she did not want to be committed to the California Rehabilitation Center. The court formally pronounced its judgment, sentencing Ramirez to the base term in case No. 1218946 of two years, the midterm. The court terminated probation in case No. 1076987 and sentenced Ramirez to one-third the midterm, or eight months, for the conviction in that case.
The court further ordered Ramirez “to pay a Restitution Fund fine in these cases in the amount of $500. It will be $400 in Action 1218946, and $100 in 1076987, pursuant to 1202.45(b).” The court further stated, pursuant to section 1202.45, subdivision (b), “additional fines in that same amount are stayed while you’re on parole. If you successfully complete parole, you won’t have to pay those.” The court then awarded applicable custody credits. On appeal, Ramirez contends the trial court erred in ordering a restitution fine in case No. 1218946 of over $200.
The court apparently misspoke when it initially referred to section 1202.45, subdivision (b). The court was likely referring to section 1202.4, subdivision (b).
DISCUSSION
Ramirez contends that because she “was placed on probation in case [No.] 1218946 on September 1, 2004” and “a restitution fine … of $200 was ordered at that time,” the court could not increase that fine to $400 when it revoked probation on March 19, 2007. Citing People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 823 (Chambers), Ramirez argues her restitution fine should be reduced to $200 in case No. 1218946 because the court cannot increase a restitution fine earlier imposed and still in effect.
We initially note that case No. 1218946 is a new action. It was based on criminal conduct that occurred after 2004. As respondent points out, no prior restitution fine was made in case No. 1218946. The only such fine was ordered in case No. 1076987. We therefore find the Chambers case to be distinguishable from this case.
There is no indication in the record that case No. 1218946 was consolidated with case No. 1076987, the case in which Ramirez was placed on probation. When, as here, a defendant pleads guilty to charges from more than one case, and there has been no motion to consolidate the actions, this court has held that a restitution fine may be imposed in each separate action. (People v. Enos (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1046, 1048-1049 (Enos).) This is especially true where the trial court has not imposed fines in excess of the $10,000 statutory maximum. (Id. at p. 1049.) Our Enos decision has been followed in People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, 864-865.
In its notice to revoke Ramirez’s probation, the People requested that the revocation of probation “be heard simultaneously with the preliminary hearing in the new case.” There was no motion by the People to consolidate the two actions.
Given our holding, we do not reach respondent’s contention that Ramirez’s failure to object to the restitution fines imposed was waived. (See People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 353.)
The trial court did not err in imposing restitution fines in both case Nos. 1218946 and 1076987.
The court reduced the restitution fine in case No. 1076987 from $200 to $100. The parties do not raise this point as error. The respondent has specifically requested the judgment be affirmed. We therefore do not reach the issue of whether it was error for the trial court to reduce the restitution fine in case No. 1076987.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.