P. v. Verketis
Filed 8/17/06 P. v. Verketis CA1/5
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIRST APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FIVE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. SHANNON VERKETIS, Defendant and Appellant. |
A112122
(Solano County Super. Ct. No. FCR213813)
|
Shannon Verketis appeals that part of a sentence that orders her to pay a $600 restitution fine. (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b).)[1] She contends the court erred in increasing the amount from the $200 restitution fine it ordered when it initially admitted her to probation.
BACKGROUND
Pursuant to a negotiated disposition, appellant pled no contest to one count of receiving stolen property. (§ 496, subd. (d).) Imposition of sentence was suspended, and she was placed on probation, with the condition, inter alia, that she complete a residential treatment program. She was also ordered to pay a $200 restitution fine. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) Her probation was revoked after she absconded from the treatment program. The court then sentenced her to the upper term of three years for the receiving stolen property conviction and imposed a $600 restitution fine and a $600 parole revocation fine (§ 1202.45), stayed pending completion of her parole supervision.
DISCUSSION
As the People correctly concede, a section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine survives the revocation of probation, and the trial court, in subsequently imposing sentence, is not authorized to impose a different restitution fine for the same conviction. (People v. Andrade (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 351, 357; People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 823.) Therefore, imposition of the $600 restitution fine was error.
The People also observe that the sentence and abstract of judgment fail to address the question of direct victim restitution. They contend the matter must be remanded for a hearing to determine the amount of victim restitution, in light of the information in the presentence report that the victim claimed $11,000 for damaged and lost property.
Section 1202.4, subdivision (f) provides that the court shall require the defendant to make restitution to the victim in every case in which a victim suffered economic loss as a result of the defendant's conduct, in an amount based on the amount of loss claimed by the victim. If such a â€
