Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County No. F06800091-1, Arlan L. Harrell, Judge.
Robert L.S. Angres, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen A. McKenna and Lloyd G. Carter, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Levy, Acting P.J., Hill, J. and Kane, J.
As part of a plea bargain, appellant pled no contest to assault with a deadly weapon (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(1)) and intentionally violating a protective order (§ 273.6, subd. (a)). The court suspended imposition of judgment and placed appellant on three years’ probation on condition that he serve 365 days in the county jail. It imposed a restitution fine of $200 and imposed, but stayed, a probation revocation fine of $200. (§§ 1202.4, 1202.44.)
Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise specified.
On March 8, 2007, after a contested hearing, the court concluded appellant had violated his probation conditions and revoked appellant’s probation. The court sentenced appellant to the middle term of three years, imposed a restitution fine of $600, and imposed, but stayed, a parole revocation fine of $600 (§§ 1202.4, 1202.45). Appellant contends the $600 restitution and parole revocation fines imposed at the time of his probation revocation are unauthorized, because a restitution fine of $200 had already been imposed at the time he was placed on probation and the parole revocation fine must be in the same amount as the restitution fine. Respondent concedes the error.
DISCUSSION
When a person is convicted of a felony, the court must impose a restitution fine of not less than $200 and not more than $10,000. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1).) If the person’s sentence includes a period of parole, the court must also impose a parole revocation restitution fine in the same amount imposed as a restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1). (§ 1202.45.) The parole revocation fine must be suspended unless the person’s parole is revoked. (Ibid.)
“[A] restitution fine imposed at the time probation is granted survives the revocation of probation.” (People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 820.) Section 1202.4 requires imposition of a restitution fine when a person is convicted of a felony. “[T]here is no provision for imposing a restitution fine after revocation of probation.” (People v. Chambers, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 822.) A second restitution fine imposed when probation is revoked is unauthorized and must be stricken. (Id. at p. 823.)
The court imposed a $200 restitution fine when appellant was placed on probation. The judgment should reflect only that $200 restitution fine. The $600 restitution fine imposed when appellant’s probation was revoked was unauthorized and must be stricken.
The parole revocation fine must be assessed “in the same amount as that imposed pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 1202.4,” that is, in the same amount as the restitution fine. (§ 1202.45.) Consequently, the parole revocation fine must be reduced to $200.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to reflect a single restitution fine in the amount of $200. The suspended parole revocation fine is reduced to $200. As so modified, the judgment is affirmed.