People v. Joseph 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)

2 On the People’s motion, the trial court dismissed the following, unrelated cases in the interest of justice: CRTR130225, CRM111734, CRM121642, CRM121786, and

CRM111269.

2 172 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1248.) In Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, the court held that 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, at p. 298.) However, the $280 restitution fines and parole revocation restitution fines here were within the lawful statutory discretionary range at the time of defendant’s offenses in 2011 and 2012. (§§ 1202.4, subd. (b) [$200/$240 minimum, $10,000 maximum], 1202.45.) Because the amount was not unauthorized, and because defendant did not object to the amount of the restitution fine and parole revocation fine in the trial court, his belated challenge to the amount of those fines is forfeited. (People v.…