P.

DISCUSSION

On the record, the court imposed a $300 sex offender fine under section 290.3, plus unspecified penalty assessments. The minute order and abstract of judgment do not reflect the amount of the sex offender fine the court imposed or the amount of penalty assessments on the fine and their statutory bases. The court’s oral pronouncement of a sentence, rather than its entry in the minute order and abstract of judgment, constitutes the judgment. (People v. Mesa (1975) 14 Cal.3d 466, 471.) A short-hand reference to “penalty assessments” on the record, followed by the clerk’s inclusion of the penalty assessment amounts in the minute order and abstract of judgment, is a common and acceptable practice. (See People v. Voit (2011) 200 Cal.App.4th 1353, 1373; People v. Sharret (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 859, 864; but see People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200 [error not to recite all fines, fees, penalties and surcharges into record at sentencing].) All fines, fees, and penalties imposed must be separately listed in the abstract of judgment. (People v. High, at p. 1200.) Both sides represent that the penalty assessments applicable to the fine in this case total $840,…