Double jeopardy prohibits trial court from increasing restitution fine following retrial. After his conviction was reversed, appellant was retried and again convicted of second degree murder. At sentencing the court imposed restitution fines that totaled more than those imposed at appellant’s first sentencing. (Pen. Code, §§ 1202.4, 1202.45.) On appeal he challenged the increased fines on double jeopardy grounds. Although appellant did not object when the fines were imposed, the court addressed his issue because he also alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. Reversed. When a defendant successfully appeals a conviction and on retrial is again convicted, the double jeopardy clause of the California Constitution (art. I, § 15) precludes imposition of a more severe punishment than initially received. In People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355, the court held that restitution fines are punishment for purposes of double jeopardy. Thus, the restitution component of appellant’s sentence may not exceed the aggregate amount initially imposed. However, this does not mean that the sections 1202.4 and 1202.45 fines must necessarily be reduced to the statutory minimum. The increase in one component of a fine does not render punishment more severe if another component is reduced – only the aggregate monetary sentence must be equal to or less than the original amount.