Probation supervision fee may not be applied to mandatory supervision portion of split sentence imposed under Realignment. Appellant entered a negotiated disposition of two cases. Pursuant to section 1170, subdivision (h) (statutory implementation of Realignment), the trial court ordered a split sentence: appellant would serve three years in county jail and the concluding portion of his term on mandatory supervision. The court imposed a monthly probation supervision fee (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b, subd. (a)). On appeal the court asked whether this fee was authorized for mandatory supervision. Held: Fee reversed. A trial court is authorized to require a defendant to pay the reasonable cost of probation supervision when probation is granted or a conditional sentence imposed. However, section 1203.1b does not authorize such a fee here because appellant was neither granted probation nor given a conditional sentence; he received a term of mandatory supervision. The Legislature has determined that a county jail commitment followed by mandatory supervision is similar to a state prison commitment, not a grant of probation or a conditional release. Mandatory supervision is not listed in section 1203.1b. The Legislature’s amendment to Penal Code section 1202.45 (and not section 1202.44) to provide for a mandatory supervision revocation restitution fine reflects that mandatory supervision is more akin to parole than probation. Section 1203.1b was not similarly amended to authorize an order for costs associated with mandatory supervision.