People v. Porter CA3

DISCUSSION

On appeal, defendant argues the trial court intended to calculate the fine using the minimum fine pursuant to section 1202.4(b)(2), but it mistakenly believed the applicable minimum fine was $280 when it was actually $240. Defendant argues the $1,400 restitution fine and corresponding parole fine should both be reduced to $1,200 each because: (1) the trial court violated ex post facto principles by improperly calculating the fines; (2) defendant was deprived of due process of law because the trial court was not fully aware of its discretion; and (3) his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to this miscalculation at sentencing. I Defendant Forfeited His Ex Post Facto And Due Process Claims The People argue that defendant forfeited his ex post facto and due process arguments by failing to object in the trial court. We agree. It is well settled that “a defendant’s failure to object in the trial court to the imposition of a restitution fine constitutes a waiver of the right to complain thereof on appeal.” (People v. Gibson (1994) 27 Cal.App.4th 1466, 1469.) The forfeiture rule applies “to claims involving the trial court’s failure to properly make or articulate…