The trial court incorrectly calculated the defendant’s fine under Penal Code section 290.3 because the calculation was based, in part, on an offense for which punishment was stayed. The Court of Appeal, therefore, remanded the matter for a hearing regarding the mandatory penalty assessments, a determination of whether Alameda County has elected to levy the emergency medical services penalty, and a determination of defendant’s ability to pay in light of his total financial obligations. In declining to decide the defendant’s arguments based on People v. Duenas, the Court explained the defendant may raise a Duenas ability-to-pay objection during resentencing.
^