Gibson

Defendant Robert Earl Gibson was convicted of robbery, his probation was revoked in two prior cases, and he was committed to state prison. Without objection by defendant, the trial court ordered him to pay a total of $2,200 in restitution fines (Gov. Code, § 13967, subd. (a)), as recommended by the probation report.

Although he did not object to the fines in the trial court, defendant contends the court erred in imposing $2,200 in restitution fines when he had no earnings or assets with which to pay that amount. Defendant acknowledges this court has held that ability to pay includes ability to earn money in the future to satisfy a restitution fine. (People v. Frye (1994) 21 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1485-1486 [ 27 Cal.Rptr.2d 52 ).) However, he suggests Frye was decided wrongly and asks us to revisit the issue.

As we shall explain, by virtue of his failure to object in the trial court, defendant has waived his right to contest the restitution fine on appeal. (Cf. People v. Blankenship (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 992, 997 [ 262 Cal.Rptr. 141 ]; People v. Zito (1992) 8 Cal.App.4th 736, 742-743 [ 10 Cal.Rptr.2d 491 ]; People v. Neal (1993) 19 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1117-1124 [ 24 Cal.Rptr.2d…