P. v. Patton

Filed 7/18/06 P. v. Patton CA3

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT

(Yuba)

----

Defendant Dana Alan Patton pled no contest to false personation and possession of heroin.^[1] He received a stipulated sentence of three years and eight months in state prison. The court imposed a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4), a $175 laboratory analysis fee (Health & Saf. Code, § 11372.5), and a $20 court security fee (§ 1465.8, subd. (a)(1)). A separate $200 parole revocation restitution fine (§ 1202.45) was suspended.

On appeal, defendant claims the court security fee violated the constitutional prohibition against ex post facto laws and the statutory prohibition against retroactive application of criminal statutes. He also asserts the trial court's order did not properly set forth the breakdown of the fee and penalty assessments concerning the laboratory analysis fee, and that this fee exceeds the permissible amount by $5. We shall modify the judgment to reduce the laboratory analysis fee to $170, and direct the trial court to amend the abstract of judgment to show the separate fees, penalty assessments, and surcharges, and to correctly reflect that defendant was convicted of false personation pursuant to section 529.

DISCUSSION

I

Imposition Of The $20 Court Security Fee

Does Not Violate Ex Post Facto Principles

Defendant contends the court security fee (§ 1465.8) must be stricken because it violates the ex post facto clauses of the state and federal Constitutions. We disagree.

Section 1465.8 became operative on August 17, 2003.^[2] It imposes a $20 security fee upon all criminal convictions in order â€