P. v. Houlet
Filed 10/17/08 P. v. Houlet CA3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT
(Yuba)
----
THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOBBIE CHRISTINE HOULET, Defendant and Appellant. | C057909 (Super. Ct. No. CRF03709) |
Defendant Bobbie Christine Houlet entered a negotiated
no contest plea to one count of welfare fraud (Welf. and Inst. Code, 10980, subd. (c)(2)) and was placed on formal probation for five years. After she three times violated her probation, defendant was sentenced to serve 16 months in state prison, and ordered to pay various fines and fees.
She contends on appeal that the trial court erred in imposing a probation revocation fine (Pen. Code, 1202.44) pursuant to a statute enacted after her offenses were committed, and that it erred by one day in calculating her custody credits. The People concede both errors.
We accept the concessions.
The probation revocation fine, otherwise authorized by Penal Code section 1202.44,[1]constituted an impermissible ex post facto punishment in this case because the crime was committed prior to the enactment of the fine. (See People v. Callejas (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 667, 678 [striking a section 1202.45 fine because the ex post facto clause forbids imposing a parole revocation fine on a parolee who committed the underlying crime prior to the enactment of the fine].) Penal Code section 1202.44 became effective on August 16, 2004 (Stats. 2004, ch. 223, 3, 8), while defendants crime was committed between March and June 2003. Accordingly, the probation revocation fine must be stricken.
We also agree with the parties that defendant is entitled to one additional day of actual custody credit. The trial court erred in concluding that defendants in-custody period of January 14 through January 18, 2000, represented four days, rather than five. (People v. Culp (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 1278, 1284.)
DISPOSITION
The judgment is modified to strike the probation revocation fine, and to add one additional day of actual custody time. As modified, the judgment is affirmed. The trial court shall prepare an amended abstract of judgment incorporating these changes and shall forward a certified copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
HULL, J.
We concur:
SIMS , Acting P.J.,
DAVIS , J.
Publication courtesy of California free legal advice.
Analysis and review provided by Carlsbad Property line attorney.
San Diego Case Information provided by www.fearnotlaw.com
[1] We further note that the abstract of judgment erroneously indicates that the probation revocation fine was imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45. It was not: the probation revocation fine was imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.44. Since we strike this fine, no correction of the abstract of judgment is required.
