Opinion
C042713.
7-22-2003
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. HARJINDER MANN SINGH, Defendant and Appellant.
The trial court found defendant violated his probation in case Nos. CRF01-1508 and CRF01-2147 and sentenced him to a total term of five years eight months in state prison. Defendant appeals contending the trial court improperly imposed the restitution fines in the two cases. We affirm.
PROCEDURAL FACTS
In the fall of 2001, defendant pled no contest to false personation (Pen. Code, § 529, factor 3) in case No. CRF01-1508 (the first case), was granted probation and ordered to pay a restitution fine of $ 200. Shortly thereafter, defendant pled guilty to false personation (Pen. Code, § 529, factor 3) in case No. CRF01-2147 (the second case) and admitted he committed this offense while released on the earlier one (Pen. Code, § 12022.1). Defendant was again granted probation and ordered to pay a restitution fine of $ 200.
In September 2002, the trial court found defendant violated probation in both cases by committing multiple new offenses. At sentencing, the court denied reinstatement of probation in both cases, imposed an upper term of three years and a two-year enhancement in the second case and imposed a consecutive one-third midterm of eight months in the first case. After calculating the time credits, the court confirmed that none of the restitution fines in either case had been paid. The court then stated: "Then the Court, pursuant to [Penal Code section] 1202.4, will order that the $ 200 in each case, thats a total of $ 400, be paid by the Defendant. [P] Sir, that will be withheld from your prison funds by the Department of Corrections pursuant to [section] 2085.5 of the Penal Code. And as required by [section] 1202.45 of the Penal Code, the Court imposes an additional restitution fine of $ 200 in each case. Thats a total of $ 400. The second $ 400, however, is stayed pending successful completion of parole." The court minutes and the abstract of judgment reflect the courts order separately for each case.
DISCUSSION
Defendant contends that because the restitution fines imposed as a condition of probation survive revocation, the court erred in imposing additional restitution fines at sentencing. The People agree that the restitution fines survive revocation of probation but argue the court merely "clarified that the original restitution fines . . . were part of the appellants new sentence." We agree with the People.
Imposition of restitution fines are triggered by conviction. (People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 822.) Accordingly, payment of a restitution fine must be a condition of probation. (Ibid .) However, restitution fines imposed as a condition of probation survive revocation of probation and, having been imposed once, cannot be altered. (Id. at pp. 819, 823.)
Here, the trial court did not alter the original restitution fines. The court simply observed that defendant had not paid any part of the fine imposed in either of the two cases and indicated that defendant was still responsible for them. Formally stating the amounts of the fines insured that they would appear in the abstract of judgment and thus be transmitted to the Department of Corrections which was responsible for collection. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186.) Further, the trial court explicitly kept the fines separate, maintaining the amount previously imposed in each case, while informing the defendant of the total amount of his liability. The trial court was correct.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: DAVIS, Acting P.J., HULL, J. --------------- Notes: Defendant is also known as Harjinder Singh Mann.