Appellant entered no-contest pleas in three cases. At that time, she was on mandatory supervised release for a fourth case in which the sentence had been imposed and suspended. At sentencing, the trial court stated it intended to impose the statutory minimum fines. After the probation officer stated the minimum restitution (Pen. Code, § 1202.4, subd. (b)) and suspended parole revocation fines (§ 1202.45) would be $1,200, the court imposed aggregate fines in that amount. The abstract of judgment reflected three $300 restitution and suspended parole revocation fines for a total of $900 each.

After ordering and reviewing supplemental briefing on what fine the trial court intended to impose, the Court of Appeal agreed with the parties that the intended aggregate fine was $900. The Court reasoned that the probation officer’s statement was based on the erroneous belief that the trial court previously failed to impose a fine in appellant’s prior mandatory supervision case. The Court ordered the abstract of judgment to prevail over the reporter’s transcript.