Upon resentencing after remand, the trial court ruled it lacked jurisdiction to conduct a full resentencing of appellant based on the terms of the remittitur. The Court of Appeal remanded again, holding that “a remand for resentencing as to part of a sentence [which was directed here] necessarily re-opens the entire sentence for full resentencing.” The Court further explained that it’s prior opinion regarding appellant’s constitutional claim of indigency was not limited to the restitution fine, as the trial court interpreted, and directed that appellant receive another ability to pay hearing with regards to the remaining fines and fees.
^