P.

DISCUSSION

When defendant committed the offenses, the minimum restitution fine

under section 1202.4, subdivision (b), was $200. This statute was amended

effective January 1, 2012, and the minimum fine was increased to $240.

Defendant asserts that the imposition of the increased minimum fine of $240

violates the ex post facto clause of both the state and federal Constitutions, and

that the fine must be reduced to $200 to reflect the statutory minimum in effect at

the time the offenses were committed.

The People disagree that the imposition of a $240 fine is an ex post facto

violation because a sentencing court had the discretion to impose a restitution fine

ranging from $200 to $10,000 during the period when the offenses were

committed, and the $240 fine is well within that range. We agree. While the

1 In light of defendant’s plea and the issue he now raises, neither the circumstances of the offense nor a complete procedural history need be set out.

Statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise stated. 2 prohibition against ex post facto laws applies to restitution fines (People v.

Valenzuela (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1248), defendant’s punishment…