California Court of Appeal

Trial court's order "reimposing" a $200 restitution fine and a $200 probation revocation restitution fine and an order adding a $200 restitution fine suspended unless parole is revoked, for defendant's violations of probation following her conviction for assault with a deadly weapon and driving with 0.08 percent or more of alcohol, is affirmed as defendant has not identified legal error. However, the trial court's words, "reimpose the restitution amounts," are inconsistent with the principles upon which Chamber was decided, and here, the survival of the $200 restitution fine and $200 probation revocation fine made it unnecessary to "reimpose" those still extant "restitution amounts."

Appellate Information

• Decided 05/18/2010
• Published 05/18/2010

Judges

• CANTIL-SAKAUYE, J.

Court

• California Court of Appeal

Counsel

• For Appellees:
  
• James F. Johnson, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant., Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Stephen G. Herndon, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Rachelle A. Newcomb, Deputy Attorney General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.