P. v.
Filed 7/26/12 P. v. Compton CA2/6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California
Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or
relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except
as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This
opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for
purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF
APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE
DISTRICT
DIVISION SIX
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and
Respondent,
v.
RICHARD RYAN COMPTON,
Defendant and
Appellant.
2d Crim. No.
B237187
(Super. Ct.
No. F454513)
(San
Luis Obispo County)
Richard Ryan Compton
appeals the order revoking his probation and sentencing him to two years in
plea to possession of methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377,
subd. (a)), and battery upon a peace officer (Pen. Code,
court erred in increasing his previously imposed restitution fine
(§ 1202.4) from $200 to $400. The
People concede the issue, and ask us to order the judgment modified to reflect
that the corresponding $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44) is now
due. We shall order the abstract of
judgment modified accordingly, and also order the parole revocation fine
(§ 1202.45) reduced to $200.
Otherwise, we affirm.
When appellant entered
his plea on January 6, 2011,
the court suspended imposition of sentence, placed him on probation, and
ordered him to serve 180 days in county jail.
Appellant was also ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine pursuant to
section 1202.4, and a $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44) was
imposed and stayed pending appellant’s successful completion of his
probation.
In May 2011, appellant
was convicted in
of various charges and was sentenced to four years in
revoked probation in the instant matter and sentenced him to a concurrent
two-year prison term. The court also
imposed a $400 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision
(b). A corresponding $400 parole
revocation fine was imposed and stayed pending appellant’s successful
completion of his parole as contemplated under section 1202.45.
Appellant contends the
$400 restitution fine imposed under subdivision (b) of section 1202.4 must be
reduced to $200 because the fine previously imposed in that amount survived the
revocation of his probation and could not be increased. The People properly concede the point. (People
v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 820-821.) As the People also note, the record does not
reflect that the court lifted the stay on the $200 probation revocation
fine. The abstract of judgment must be
modified accordingly. (
430, 434-435.) Because a parole
revocation fine imposed under section 1202.45 must be in the same amount as the
restitution fine, we shall also order the abstract modified to reduce that fine
from $400 to $200. (People v. Johnson (2003) 114 Cal.App.4th 284, 306–308;
899, 921.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified
to reflect that: (1) the $400
restitution fine imposed under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), is reduced to
$200; (2) the $400 parole revocation fine imposed and suspended under section
1202.45 is reduced to $200; and (3) the $200 probation revocation fine
previously imposed and stayed under section 1202.44 is now due and
payable. The trial court is directed to
prepare an amended abstract of
>
judgment
reflecting the modifications and to forward the amended abstract to the
California Department of Corrections and
Rehabilitation.
The judgment is affirmed
as modified.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.
PERREN,
J.
We concur:
GILBERT, P.J.
YEGAN, J.
Barry
T. LaBarbera, Judge
Superior
Court County of San Luis Obispo
______________________________
California Appellate
Project, Jonathan B. Steiner, Executive Director, Richard B. Lennon, Staff
Attorney, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and
Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris,
Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E.
Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews, Supervising
Deputy Attorney General, Analee J. Brodie, Deputy Attorney General, for
Plaintiff and Respondent.
are to the Penal Code.
