People v. Ojeda CA4/2

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues the restitution and parole revocation fines should be stricken

because they were not part of the trial court’s oral pronouncement of judgment.

We agree that the trial court did not actually impose the fines, even though they

are included on the minute order, because the court did not do so orally at sentencing in

the presence of defendant. “Where there is a discrepancy between the oral

pronouncement of judgment and the minute order or the abstract of judgment, the oral

pronouncement controls.” (People v. Zackery (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 380, 385

(Zackery).) “Although we recognize that a detailed recitation of all the fees, fines and

penalties on the record may be tedious, California law does not authorize shortcuts.”

(People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200.) “The clerk cannot supplement the

judgment the court actually pronounced by adding a provision to the minute order and the

abstract of judgment.” (Zackery, at pp. 387-388.)

However, as the People point out, the trial court was obligated either to impose

both the restitution fine and the parole revocation fine, or state on the record its reasons

for not imposing the fines. “In…