In People v. Tillman (2000) the sentencing court failed to impose a restitution fine under Penal Code section 1202.4 and a parole revocation fine under Penal Code section 1202.45. The trial judge neglected to impose the minimum $ 200 section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine. Further, the trial court failed to set forth its reasons for not imposing the minimum $ 200 section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine. (People v. Tillman, supra, 22 Cal. 4th at p. 302.) As noted previously, section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) requires a trial judge to impose the minimum $ 200 restitution fine ". . . unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and states those reasons on the record." In Tillman, while the case was in superior court, the deputy district attorney failed to object to the omission of the $ 200 section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine. Also, the deputy district attorney failed to object to the absence of a recitation on the record of compelling and extraordinary reasons for not imposing the section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine. Additionally, in Tillman, the trial court failed to impose the section 1202.45 additional restitution fine. (Ibid.) The failure to have imposed the section 1202.45 additional restitution fine was understandable and perfectly legal. As noted in the immediately preceding paragraph, the section 1202.45 additional restitution fine which is suspended unless there is a parole violation must be in a sum equal to the section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine. If no section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine is imposed, then no section 1202.45 additional restitution fine may be imposed and suspended. In Tillman, that is exactly what happened. No section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) restitution fine was imposed; hence, no section 1202.45 additional restitution fine could be imposed, nor was it.