People v. Stevens CA3

DISCUSSION

Defendant contends, “The trial court erred when it permitted the entry of a restitution fine in the minutes and abstract of judgment without a corresponding oral

Further undesignated section references are to the Penal Code.

2 pronouncement by the judge.” (Boldface & some capitalization omitted.) We disagree and conclude the minutes and abstract of judgment are correct because the trial court’s oral pronouncement imposing only statutory minimum fines included the imposition of a $300 statutory restitution fine and a corresponding $300 parole revocation fine. Defendant argues the twin $300 fines included in the trial court’s minutes and abstract of judgment are erroneous because the trial judge’s oral pronouncements evinced her intent to reduce the statutory restitution fine and parole revocation fine to zero to emphasize restitution awarded to the victim. Specifically, defendant contends the trial judge intended the interest of victim restitution to constitute a compelling and extraordinary reason to waive the fines. (See § 1202.4, subd. (b).) We disagree. “ ‘ “[A] trial court is presumed to have been aware of and followed the applicable law.” ’ ” (People v.…