Is a defendant's probation condition conditioned upon payment of a probation supervision fee?

be interpreted as stating that defendant's probation is conditioned upon payment of a probation supervision fee, the trial court erred. (People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1067, fn. 5; Hart, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at pp. 906-907.)

The appropriate remedy, however, is not to strike the order to pay the probation supervision fee. Instead, the imposition of this fee as a condition of probation may simply be modified to be treated as "an order entered at judgment" and to be "enforced as permitted in the relevant statutes." (Hart, supra, 65 Cal.App.4th at p. 907; see People v. Hall, supra, 103 Cal.App.4th at p. 892 ["We simply deem the requirement [to pay probation costs] an order, not a condition [of probation], and proceed to consider other aspects of the court's order"].) We will thus direct that the order to pay this fee be construed as an order entered at judgment. In Hart, the error was corrected simply by directing that "the order granting probation must be modified to delete the order to pay costs of probation from the conditions of probation, making it simply an order entered at judgment. As such, the order may be enforced as permitted in the relevant statutes." (Hart, at p. 907.) We shall direct the same modification to the order of probation in this case.