P.

DISCUSSION

As a threshold matter, defendant and the Attorney General both urge us to consider defendant’s claim on the merits, even though he did not formally object and preserve the issue in the trial court. We believe it is appropriate to consider defendant’s claim on the merits in the interest of judicial economy, and to forestall a subsequent habeas petition on the issue. (People v. Marlow (2004) 34 Cal.4th 131, 150; People v. Butler (2003) 31 Cal.4th 1119, 1128.) On the merits, we agree the increased restitution fine violates the state constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 15.) People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355 is directly on point. In that case, the court held the restitution fine is a form of punishment which may not be increased upon resentencing following a successful appeal. (Id. at pp. 363-366.) “The appropriate remedy is to modify the judgment to reduce the restitution fund fine to $200, and we will do so.” (People v. Wardell (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1496.) The parole revocation fine must be reduced to $200 as well, even though defendant has no meaningful prospect of parole. “In every case where a . . . sentence includes…