People v. Beck CA3

DISCUSSION

The facts of defendant’s conviction are irrelevant to our determination of her claim on appeal. It suffices to say that the trial court imposed a $300 restitution fine pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1)1 at defendant’s sentencing. Section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) provides in relevant part that every defendant is subject to a separate and additional restitution fine, at the discretion of the trial court. At the time of defendant’s offense, the permissible range of the fine was $200 to $10,000. (Stats. 2010, ch. 351, § 9.) Although the minimum fine had been increased to $300 by the time of defendant’s sentencing, defendant was still eligible for the earlier minimum fine of $200 based on the date of her offense. (Stats. 2011, ch. 358, § 1.) The trial court stated its intent to impose the “minimal fines” and then imposed a $300 restitution fine. There was no objection. Defendant now argues that the imposition of the $300 fine was an ex post facto penalty and must be reduced to $200 to reflect the statutory minimum in effect at the time of her April 2011 offense. She has, however, forfeited any claim of error by her failure to object in the trial…