P.

BACKGROUND

We omit a detailed recitation of the facts because this appeal involves only

sentencing issues. It suffices to say that, on May 5 and May 6, 2011, Johnson possessed

and sold cocaine base to an undercover officer.

DISCUSSION

I.

Johnson contends the court violated the ex post facto provisions of the state and

federal Constitutions when it imposed both the restitution and parole revocation fines in

the amount of $240 each instead of $200 each, which was the prescribed minimum under

section 1202.4, subdivision (b) at the time he committed the offenses.

Johnson forfeited his claim by failing to challenge imposition of the fines at trial.

(People v. Nelson (2011) 51 Cal.4th 198, 227; People v. Gamache (2010) 48 Cal.4th 347,

409.) During the pendency of this appeal, the California Supreme Court ruled in an

analogous case, whose logic applies equally here, that "a defendant who does nothing to

put at issue the propriety of imposition of a booking fee forfeits the right to challenge the

sufficiency of the evidence to support imposition of the booking fee on appeal, in the

same way that a defendant who goes to trial forfeits his challenge to the propriety…