People v. Ridgway CA3

Good Law
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaApril 13, 2015C076327California1,526 words

Opinion

Opinion

DISCUSSION

I. Ex Post Facto Claim

The information alleges that defendant’s crime took place between September 23, 2011, and February 17, 2012. In 2011, section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), provided in pertinent part: “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 states those reasons on the record. [¶] (1) The restitution fine shall be set at the discretion of the court and commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, but shall not be less than two hundred dollars ($200), and not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), if the person is convicted of a felony . . . .” (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1), as amended by Stats. 2011, ch. 45 (Sen. Bill No. 208), § 1, eff. July 1, 2011, italics added.) Effective January 1, 2012, the Legislature amended section 1202.4 to provide that the minimum amount of the fine in felony cases “shall not be less

3 than two hundred forty dollars ($240) starting on January 1, 2012, two hundred eighty dollars ($280) starting on January 1, 2013, and three hundred dollars ($300) starting on January 1, 2014, and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.