P.

DISCUSSION

A. SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION FINE

Defendant contends the trial court erred by ordering him to pay a sexual offender

registration fine in the amount of $1,800 because the fine should have been $1,100.

(§ 290.3.) We agree the trial court erred, but disagree with the $1,100 amount.

Defendant’s contention raises a question of law, in that he is asserting the amount

of his fine is illegal. We review questions of law de novo. (People v. Ravaux (2006)

142 Cal.App.4th 914, 919.) The sexual offender registration fine should be imposed in

the amount applicable at the time the defendant committed the relevant offenses.

(People v. Valenzuela (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1248.) In 1999, section 290.3,

3 subdivision (a), imposed “a fine of two hundred dollars ($200) upon the first conviction

or a fine of three hundred dollars ($300) upon the second and each subsequent

conviction.” The word “or” in section 290.3 has been interpreted to be conjunctive, i.e.

it means “and.” Thus, the word “or” in section 290.3 does not mean the fines are

alternatives; rather, they should all be applied. (People v. Walz (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th

1364, 1370, fn. 7.)

In 1999, a fine…