Rodriguez

Introduction

Sergio Alfred Rodriguez appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of a suppression motion (Pen. Code, § 1538.5) and his conviction by *374 jury of second degree robbery (Pen. Code, § 211) with firearm use (Pen. Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to prison for seven years. The trial court imposed a $200 Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), restitution fine, but not a parole revocation fine as required under Penal Code section 1202.45.

In the published portion of this opinion, we hold, consistent with settled law concerning the appealability of unauthorized sentences, that where, as here, the trial court imposed a mandatory Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine (hereafter section 1202.4 fine) 1 but failed to impose a mandatory section 1202.45 parole revocation fine, 2 the judgment must be amended to impose the latter.

In People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300 [ 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 , 992 P.2d 1109 ] (Tillman), the People argued that the trial court erroneously had failed to impose a mandatory section 1202.4 fine. However, what the trial court had done was fail to state on the record the compelling and…

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…

Certified for Partial Publication. [*]

Sergio Alfred Rodriguez appeals from the judgment entered following the denial of a suppression motion (Pen.Code, § 1538.5) and his conviction by jury of second degree robbery (Pen.Code, § 211) with firearm use (Pen.Code, § 12022.5, subd. (a)). He was sentenced to prison for seven years. The trial court imposed a $200 Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b), restitution fine, but not a parole revocation fine as required under Penal Code section 1202.45.

In the published portion of this opinion, we hold, consistent with settled law concerning the appealability of unauthorized sentences, that where, as here, the trial court imposed a mandatory Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b) restitution fine (hereafter section 1202.4 fine) [1] but failed to impose a mandatory section 1202.45 parole revocation fine, [2] the judgment must be amended to impose the latter.

In People v. Tillman (2000) 22 Cal.4th 300 , 92 Cal.Rptr.2d 741 , 992 P.2d 1109 ( "Tillman" ), the People argued that the trial court erroneously had failed to impose a mandatory section 1202.4 fine. However, what the trial court had done was fail to state on the…