Court Opinion

ID: 9747944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 15:44:34.675076+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:29.227985
License: Public Domain

KITCHING, J.
I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that this court must impose a suspended Penal Code section 1202.45 parole revocation restitution fine. In People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300 [92 Cal.Rptr.2d 741, 992 P.2d 1109], our Supreme Court indicated that fines imposed pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 are mandatory. The court stated those statutes “require trial courts to impose a restitution fine as part of the judgment of conviction entered against a criminal defendant and, in cases where parole is granted, an additional fine in the same amount suspended unless ... the sentencing court, in the words of the statute, ‘finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record.’ (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) In cases in which the court imposes a restitution fine, imposition of a parole revocation fine is also mandatory.” (22 Cal.4th at pp. 301-302.) The court then determined that, in failing to object at sentencing to the trial court’s failure to impose section 1202.4 and section 1202.45 fines, the People had waived imposition of those fines. In reaching this conclusion, the Tillman court made no distinction between the section 1202.4 and the section 1202.45 fines. We are bound by the court’s decision in Tillman. (Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior Court (1962) 57 Cal.2d 450, 455 [20 Cal.Rptr. 321, 369 P.2d 937].) Accordingly, I would conclude the People have waived any claim that this court must modify the judgment to impose the section 1202.45 fine.
A petition for a rehearing was denied May 15, 2000, and appellant’s petition for review by the Supreme Court was denied August 9, 2000.