P.

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues that the trial court’s calculation of the restitution fine based on the January 2012 version of section 1202.4 constituted a violation of the prohibition against ex post facto laws, and that the trial court was required to calculate the restitution fine based on the version of section 1202.4 in effect at the time he committed the charged offense. Defendant contends that application of the appropriate version of section 1202.

1 Subsequent unspecified statutory references are to the Penal Code.

2 would have resulted in a $400 restitution fine, and he accordingly requests that we reduce the restitution fine to $400 and reduce the corresponding parole revocation fine to $400. The People argue that defendant’s claim is forfeited due to his failure to object to the restitution fine. The People concede that if defendant’s claim is not found to be forfeited, the claim is meritorious. As explained below, we conclude that defendant did not forfeit his claim, and we therefore will reduce the restitution fine and the corresponding parole revocation fine. “Ordinarily, a criminal defendant who does not challenge an assertedly erroneous ruling of the trial court…