People v. Cortez CA3

DISCUSSION

A restitution fine is considered punishment for purposes of ex post facto analysis. (People v. Hanson (2000) 23 Cal.4th 355, 360-362; People v. Valenzuela (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1248.) A change in the law, making conduct a crime when it had not been a crime prior to the change, or increasing punishment for a crime, or eliminating a defense, violate ex post facto principles if the new law is applied retrospectively. (Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 297-298.) That is not the case here. Defendant committed his crime on April 22, 2012. Since the range of a restitution fine at the time of defendant’s crime was between $240 and $10,000 (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)), the amount imposed, $280, was within this range. The maximum fine defendant faced, both before and after his crime, was $10,000. An unauthorized sentence is one that “could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.” (People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354.) Since the fines imposed were not unauthorized, we conclude that the fines imposed do not violate ex post facto principles. Defendant asserts that the trial court intended to impose the minimum, citing the court’s…