In People v. Villalobos (2012) 54 Cal.4th 177, the defendant pled no contest to attempted murder and second degree robbery in exchange for a 17-year prison term and dismissal of other allegations. The defendant was not informed that the direct consequences of his plea would include imposition of restitution and parole revocation fines. At sentencing, without any objection from the defendant, the trial court imposed a $4,000 restitution fine and a $4,000 parole revocation fine. On appeal, the defendant sought reduction of both fines to the statutory minimum, arguing that imposition of $4,000 fines of which he was not informed violated the plea agreement. (Villalobos, supra, 54 Cal.4th at pp. 179-180.) The California Supreme Court affirmed the judgment. It explained that imposition of restitution and parole revocation fines in the context of a plea bargain implicates two separate legal principles. First, before taking a guilty plea, the trial court must admonish the defendant of the direct consequences of the plea, which includes imposition of a restitution fine; absent an objection at the sentencing hearing, the error in failing to admonish the defendant of the direct consequences of his or her plea is waived. (Id. at pp. 181-182.) Second, due process requires that the punishment imposed pursuant to a plea agreement, including the amount of a restitution fine, may not exceed that which the parties agreed upon; a defendant "forfeits a claim that his punishment exceeds the terms of a plea bargain when the trial court gives a section 1192.5 admonition and the defendant does not withdraw his plea at sentencing." (Id. at p. 182.) Regarding the first principle, because the defendant in Villalobos did not object to the fines at sentencing, the court found he waived on appeal any claim of error based on failure to advise. (Villalobos, supra, 54 Cal.4th at p. 182.) Regarding the second principle, because the trial court did not advise the defendant of his section 1192.5 right to withdraw his plea, the defendant did not forfeit his claim that imposition of fines greater than the statutory minimum violated the terms of his plea bargain by failing to withdraw his plea or otherwise objecting to those fines at the sentencing hearing. (Villalobos, at p. 182.) However, the court concluded that because the plea bargain was silent on the amount of the mandatory fines, the bargain left the amount to the trial court's discretion, and therefore the court in fact had enforced the plea bargain. (Id. at pp. 184-186.)