In People v. Walker (1991) 54 Cal.3d 1013, the defendant pleaded guilty to one felony in return for dismissal of another count and a middle-term prison sentence. The trial court did not give the section 1192.5 admonition. It thereafter sentenced the defendant according to the terms of the plea bargain except that it also imposed a restitution fine of $ 5,000, a term not mentioned in the plea agreement. The defendant did not object to imposition of the fine. The appellate court held that the only remedy for the error was to allow the defendant to withdraw his guilty plea if he chose to do so and then remand the matter to the trial court. The Supreme Court disagreed. It analyzed the differing considerations that apply when the failure to advise about a restitution fine amounts to: (1) the failure to advise as to the direct consequences of a plea (implicating a judicially declared rule of criminal procedure); (2) a violation of a plea agreement (implicating constitutional due process principles). The court held as follows: "When the defendant has not been advised of the fine before entering a nonnegotiated guilty plea, the error is waived if not raised at or before sentencing. If the error is timely raised, and the court finds it is reasonably probable the defendant would not have pleaded guilty if properly advised, the court must either reduce the fine to the statutory minimum of $ 100 or allow the defendant to withdraw the plea. Where the restitution fine significantly exceeds the terms of a negotiated plea, and the section 1192.5 admonition is not given, the error is not waived by acquiescence and may not be deemed harmless. Hence, the trial court must either reduce the fine to $ 100 or allow the defendant to withdraw the plea. Finally, if the error is raised after sentencing, as here on appeal, the proper remedy is generally to reduce the fine to the statutory minimum." ( Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1030.) The court then reversed the appellate court judgment and remanded with directions to modify the trial court's judgment by reducing the $ 5,000 restitution fine to $ 100 and to affirm as modified. In People v. Walker (1991) the California Supreme Court addressed the issue of the erroneous imposition of a restitution fine. In Walker, the defendant pleaded guilty to a felony pursuant to a plea bargain. In accepting his plea the court advised the defendant that the maximum penalty for the offense was seven years in state prison and a $ 10,000 fine. He was not informed that he was subject to a mandatory restitution fine of between $ 100 and $ 10,000; nor was he advised pursuant to section 1192.5 that he had the right to withdraw his plea if the sentencing court deviated from the plea bargain. At sentencing, the court imposed a five-year sentence and a $ 5,000 restitution fine. Although defendant did not object to this fine at sentencing, he nevertheless claimed on appeal that it violated the plea bargain. The Supreme Court explained that the court erred in not advising defendant that there was a "possible $ 10,000 penalty fine and a mandatory restitution fine of between $ 100 and $ 10,000." ( People v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 1029.) It deemed the failure to advise about the restitution fine harmless on appeal because defendant did not challenge it at or before sentencing. However, the court also found that the imposition of the restitution fine violated the plea bargain. This violation was not subject to harmless error analysis because a section 1192.5 admonition was not given. The court held that because the error was raised after sentencing, the proper and appropriate remedy was simply to reduce the restitution fine to its statutory minimum of $ 100. ( People v. Walker, supra, 54 Cal.3d at pp. 1026-1029, 1030.)