NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
EDMON, P. J.
Defendant and appellant Grover Wilson Smith III appeals the imposition of increased restitution fines under Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b),
On January 10, 2013, Smith pled no contest in case number MA058128 to felony child abuse (§ 273a), and no contest in case number MA057205 to making criminal threats (§ 422). Smith was placed on probation for four years and ordered to serve one year in county jail. The court imposed various fines and fees, including restitution fines of $240 under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), for each offense.
Smith contends that, upon revocation of his probation, the trial court had no authority to impose restitution fines different in amount than the fines originally imposed.
As the Attorney General properly concedes, the trial court had no authority to increase the amount of Smith's restitution fines after revoking his probation.
"In the absence of extraordinary and compelling circumstances, when a person is convicted of a felony, a restitution fine must be imposed, irrespective of whether probation is granted. (§ 1202.4, subd. (b).) If probation is granted, payment of the restitution fine must be made a condition of receiving probation. (§ 1202.4, subd. (m).) A restitution fine is imposed as a condition of receiving probation and the imposition of the fine survives the probationary term. (People v. Chambers (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 819, 822.) `Furthermore, there is no provision for imposing a restitution fine after revocation of probation.' (Ibid.) Despite the fact that additional sentencing may be imposed upon the revocation of probation, `[t]he triggering event for imposition of the restitution fine is still conviction.' (Ibid.)" (People v. Preston (2015) 239 Cal.App.4th 415, 423; accord People v. Downey (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 899, 921.)
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the trial court lacked authority to award additional restitution fines when it revoked Smith's probation. However, we need not reverse the judgment because, after the filing of the appeal in this case, the trial court, by nunc pro tunc order, corrected the error asserted on appeal, reinstated the original $240 restitution fines, and amended the abstract of judgment.
The motion to augment the record, filed May 5, 2017, is granted. The judgment, as corrected by the trial court's February 7, 2017 order, is affirmed.
LAVIN, J., and JOHNSON (MICHAEL), J.