Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Fresno County Super. Ct. No. F99630434-9, Arlan L. Harrell, Judge.
William D. Farber, 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, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Louis M. Vasquez, Brian Alvarez, and William K. Kim, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
Before Wiseman, Acting P.J., Levy, J., and Dawson, J.
In June 1999, appellant Jesus Bravo Torres pled no contest to infliction of corporal punishment on a spouse or cohabitant (Pen. Code, § 273.5) and admitted an enhancement allegation that in committing that offense he personally inflicted great bodily injury under circumstances involving domestic violence (§ 12022.7, subd. (d)). In July 1999, the court imposed a six-year prison term; stayed execution of sentence; placed appellant on five years’ probation, one of the terms of which was that appellant serve one year in county jail; and ordered that appellant pay a $200 restitution fine, pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b).
Except as otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.
In September 1999, after completing his county jail term, appellant was released to the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, and thereafter deported. As a result of his deportation, appellant failed to appear for a court hearing in January 2000. Consequently, the court revoked appellant’s probation and issued a bench warrant for his arrest.
At some point thereafter, appellant reentered the United States, and in November 2006 he was arrested by Reedley police on the bench warrant. The Fresno County Probation Department recommended the court deny reinstatement of probation, alleging appellant had violated probation by failing to report upon reentry into the United States and by committing violations of Vehicle Code sections 31 (giving false information to a peace officer) and 23222, subdivision (b) (possession of one ounce or less of marijuana while driving).
In April 2007, following a contested revocation-of-probation hearing, the court found appellant to be in violation of conditions of his probation, lifted the stay on the previously imposed six-year prison term; imposed a parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) in the amount of $1,200; and suspended that fine “pending a successful completion of a period of probation [sic].” The abstract of judgment indicates, incorrectly, that the court imposed two $1,200 fines, pursuant to sections 1202.4, subdivision (b) and 1202.45, respectively, and that the latter fine was suspended pending successful completion of parole.
Section 1202.45 provides that the parole revocation fine “shall be suspended unless the person’s parole is revoked.” (§ 1202.45, italics added.)
On appeal, appellant contends, and the People concede, (1) the court erred in imposing the $1,200 parole revocation fine, and (2) the abstract of judgment incorrectly indicates the court imposed a restitution fine of $1,200 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b). We agree. We will modify the judgment accordingly and order the preparation of an amended abstract of judgment.
DISCUSSION
Section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) mandates, subject to an exception not applicable here, that in every case in which a person is convicted of a felony, the court is required to impose a restitution fine of at least $200 but not more than $10,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)). Such a fine remains in effect following the revocation of probation. (People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 823; People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 921.)
No restitution fine can be imposed if “[the court] finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and it states those reasons on the record.” (§ 1202.4, subd. (c).)
Section 1202.45 provides that when a court imposes a restitution fine under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), it must also impose, and suspend pending successful completion of parole, a second fine, commonly referred to as a parole revocation fine, in the same amount. (§ 1202.45.) Imposition of a parole revocation fine in excess of the amount of the restitution fine is an unauthorized sentence. (People v. Arata (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 195.)
An appellate court, under its inherent power to correct clerical errors at any time, may properly order correction of an abstract of judgment that does not accurately reflect oral pronouncement of judgment. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185.)
Based on the foregoing, we conclude as follows: Following the revocation of appellant’s probation, the court erred in imposing a section 1202.45 fine in excess of the amount of the restitution fine, i.e., $200, and in failing to suspend the section 1202.45 fine pending successful completion of parole. The court did not order a $1,200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), and the abstract of judgment is in error in indicating the court did so. As the parties agree, the judgment should be modified to reduce the parole revocation fine to $200, and an amended abstract of judgment should be prepared.
DISPOSITION
The $200 restitution fine imposed in 1999 remains in effect. The judgment is modified to provide that the $1,200 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45) is (1) reduced to $200, and (2) suspended unless parole is revoked. The trial court is directed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting these modifications and the correct amount of the restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), i.e., $200, and to forward a copy of the amended abstract to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. As modified, the judgment is affirmed.