California v. PrestonAnnotate this Case
This appeal arose from three separate cases: in each case the trial court granted defendant probation. In the first case, the trial court suspended execution of sentence and imposed a restitution fund fine. In the second and third cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and imposed a restitution fund fine and a probation revocation fine. The trial court revoked probation in all three cases and, in each case, imposed an additional restitution fund fine of $300 and a parole revocation fine of $300. Defendant Lisa Marie Preston raised a number of issues relative to the imposition of these additional fines. "At its core," this case presented the issue of how these fines should be applied when a sentence is imposed but the trial court suspends execution and, alternatively, how these fines should be applied when the trial court initially suspends imposition of sentence but later imposes a sentence that includes a period of parole. Taking each of these four questions in order, the Court of Appeal concluded: (1) when the trial court imposes sentence and suspends execution, and the suspended sentence includes a period of parole, the trial court must impose the parole revocation fine at sentencing; (2) when the trial court initially suspends imposition of sentence and orders a restitution fund fine, the trial court must impose a parole revocation fine when it later imposes a sentence that includes a period of parole; (3) when the sentence includes both a grant of probation and a sentence with a period of parole, the trial court must impose both a probation revocation fine and a parole revocation fine. To the extent that the trial court failed to impose a parole revocation file at resentencing, the Court of Appeal corrected. The Court held that the imposition of parole revocation fines was proper. The parties agreed the trial court was required to lift the stays on the two previously imposed probation revocation fines when it revoked probation in cases 2 and 3. The Court lifted those stays. The Court agreed with defendant that the trial court erred when it imposed a second round of restitution fund fines in the amount of $900. Accordingly, it struck those fines. As modified, the Court affirmed the trial court judgment.