Does the Attorney General have authority to charge interest on direct victim restitution?

Olivares argued in his opening brief the court lacked authority to impose interest on restitution. In his reply brief, he agreed with the Attorney General interest on direct victim restitution is authorized. ( 1202.4, subd. (f)(3)(G) [restitution order must fully reimburse the victim for every determined economic loss including "[i]nterest, at the rate of 10 percent per annum, that accrues as of the date of sentencing or loss, as determined by the court."].) But he suggests it is unclear whether the court ordered interest to be paid on the restitution fine, which is not authorized. We disagree. The court's order referenced interest from "the date of loss." That clearly would not refer to the fine, which was not triggered by a "loss." We agree with the Attorney General the trial court must correct its minute order and the abstract of judgment, which incorrectly recorded that interest was to be paid was calculated from the date of the sentencing hearing, rather than the date of loss as the trial court had ordered. (People v. Mitchell (2001) 26 Cal.4th 181, 185-187.)