IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)
January 3, 2012
THE PEOPLE, PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT,
MICHAEL LLOYD THOMAS, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT.
(Super. Ct. No. SF114350B)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Butz , J.
P. v. Thomas
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
In accordance with a plea agreement, defendant Michael Lloyd Thomas was sentenced to 15 years in state prison for residential burglary, automobile burglary, and two counts of receiving stolen property. Defendant also admitted one strike allegation and a prior serious felony allegation. Additionally, the trial court ordered defendant to pay a $200 felony restitution fine, pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1),*fn1 and an accompanying $200 parole revocation fine, pursuant to section 1202.45. During the proceedings, however, both the trial court and defendant's counsel misstated these minimum fines as $220 instead of $200.
On appeal, defendant contends that because the trial court misunderstood its discretion with regard to the fines under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, we should remand on the issue of the restitution amount.
Because the minute order and the abstract of judgment show the trial court imposed the actual minimum amount of $200, we reject defendant's contention.
During sentencing, the trial court stated that it would impose $220 fines under sections 1202.4 and 1202.45, which were the "minimum" amounts. The correct minimum, however, is $200. (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1), 1202.45.)
The record clearly reflects the trial court wished to impose the minimum restitution and parole revocation fines, evidenced by its use of the word "minimum" each time it referred to these fines. Furthermore, the minute order and the abstract of judgment (as well as an amended abstract) reveal the court imposed the actual minimum fines of $200. We therefore find there was no error.
The judgment is affirmed.
We concur: NICHOLSON , Acting P. J. DUARTE , J.