People v. Damian CA5

DISCUSSION

I. Restitution Fines

Defendant contends that the trial court erred by imposing a $280 restitution fine in two of his four cases because he committed the crimes charged in those two cases when section 1202.4 allowed for a minimum fine of $240, not $280.2 He asserts that the court intended to impose the minimum fine because it imposed the current minimum of $280. 3 We disagree that the fine was unauthorized or that the trial court clearly intended to impose the minimum fine, and we conclude defendant nevertheless has forfeited his claim. “Under the United States Constitution, ‘“‘any statute … which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission … is prohibited as ex post

All statutory references are to the Penal Code. The two cases that are the subject of this issue are MF010355B and MF010492A. In 2012, when defendant allegedly committed the crimes in these two cases, section 1202.4 provided in pertinent part: “(b) In every case where a person is convicted of a crime, the court shall impose a separate and additional restitution fine, unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so, and…