Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. No. NA085129 Tomson T. Ong, Judge.
Tanya Dellaca, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Assistant Attorney General, Paul M. Roadarmel, Jr. and Baine P. Kerr, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
CHANEY, J.
BACKGROUND
On May 18, 2010, Fernando Valle pleaded no contest to one count of possession for sale of methamphetamine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378.) He admitted, pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a), that he had a prior conviction for possession of cocaine base for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11351.5). He also admitted that he had served four prior prison terms within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b).
The trial court imposed a 10-year prison term: the high term of three years for the offense, plus three years for the prior conviction enhancement under Health and Safety Code section 11370.2, subdivision (a), and four years for the four prior prison terms under Penal Code section 667.5, subdivision (b). The court also imposed various fines and assessments, including a $200 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b). The court stayed execution of the sentence and placed Valle on probation for five years with terms and conditions.
On or about May 26, 2010, Valle was arrested for an alleged probation violation. The following day the trial court summarily revoked Valle’s probation and set the matter for a probation violation hearing.
After hearing testimony from two probation officers, a police detective and Valle, the trial court found that Valle violated the terms and conditions of his probation by failing to submit to a drug test, and by being in constructive possession of gang material and marijuana plants.
On June 23, 2010, the trial court ordered that the 10-year prison sentence imposed on May 18, 2010 be executed. According to the reporter’s transcript from that hearing, the court stated on the record that Valle was ordered to pay a $1,000 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, and a $1,000 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45, as well as various other fees.
DISCUSSION
Valle’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in imposing a $1,000 restitution fine (and a corresponding $1,000 parole revocation fine). As Valle points out, on June 23, 2010, the trial court ordered execution of a previously-imposed sentence which included a restitution fine in the amount of $200, not $1,000.
The parole revocation fine must be imposed in the same amount as the restitution fine. (Pen. Code, § 1202.45.)
On appeal, the People concede that the trial court erred to the extent it imposed two different restitution fines for the same conviction: a $200 fine at the time probation was granted and a $1,000 fine at the time probation was revoked. “There is no statutory authority justifying the second restitution fine because... the first restitution fine remained in force despite the revocation of probation.” (People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 823); People v. Arata (2004) 118 Cal.App.4th 195, 202.) “On revocation of probation, if the court previously had imposed sentence, the sentencing judge must order that exact sentence into effect....” (People v. Howard (1997) 16 Cal.4th 1081, 1088.)
As the People point out, however, there is no error in the judgment. The abstract of judgment and the minute order from the June 23, 2010 hearing reflect the imposition of a $200 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a $200 parole revocation fine under Penal Code section 1202.45. The minute order indicates that these were the fines which were “previously imposed” on May 18, 2010, when the trial court granted probation.
To the extent the trial court’s oral pronouncement of the fines, as reflected in the reporter’s transcript from the June 23, 2010 hearing, differs from the abstract of judgment and minute order, we order the oral pronouncement modified to reflect the imposition of a $200 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a $200 parole revocation fine under Penal Code section 1202.45.
Ordinarily where there is a discrepancy between the oral pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or abstract of judgment, the oral pronouncement controls. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-186.) In this case, however, the oral pronouncement of the restitution and parole revocation fines was in error and resulted in an unauthorized sentence. There is no need to modify the minute order or abstract of judgment, however, because both correctly set forth the amounts of the previously imposed fines.
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed. The trial court’s oral pronouncement of the fines, as reflected in the reporter’s transcript from the June 23, 2010 hearing, is modified to reflect the imposition of a $200 restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a $200 parole revocation fine under Penal Code section 1202.45.
We concur: ROTHSCHILD, Acting P. J., JOHNSON, J.