The People v. Arnold CA4/2

DISCUSSION

In 2011, when defendant committed his offense, the minimum fine under section

1202.4, subdivision (b), was $200. In 2012, when defendant was sentenced, the

minimum fine had increased to $240. (Stats. 2011, ch. 358, § 1; People v. Kramis (2012)

209 Cal.App.4th 346, 350, fn. 2.)

The ex post facto clauses of both the federal and state Constitutions prohibit any

statute which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime after its commission.

(Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 294, 295.) “A restitution fine qualifies as

punishment for purposes of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. [Citations.]”

(People v. Saelee (1995) 35 Cal.App.4th 27, 30.)

3 Defendant contends the imposition of the $240 resitution and parole revocation

fines violated the constitutional prohibition against the ex post facto application of a law

because the trial court intended to impose the statutory minimum of $200 effective in

2011 and therefore erroneously imposed the $240 minimum applicable in 2012. We are

not persuaded.

First, there is no ex post facto application of section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1),

because the court had discretion to impose a restitution…