Filed 4/9/13 P. v. Pahulu CA4/2
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been
certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION TWO
THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent, E055471
v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1100419)
WARREN PEPE PAHULU, OPINION
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan,
Judge. Affirmed.
Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant
Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel
and Eric A. Swenson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
1
BACKGROUND1
Defendant and appellant Warren Pepe Pahulu pleaded guilty to five counts
of forcible lewd and lascivious acts with two children under the age of 14 years.
(Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1).)2 These acts occurred between October 2007 and
October 2010. In return, he received a stipulated sentence of 28 years to life. In
addition, the court imposed a $240 restitution fine, as well as a $240 parole
revocation fine.
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.
2 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 was not
increased beyond what was prescribed when the crimes were committed. The
sentencing court could have imposed a $240 restitution fine in 2010. Thus, it was
not an unauthorized sentence, i.e., a sentence that could not lawfully be imposed
under any circumstances in the particular case. (People v. Garcia (2010) 185
Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218.)
Defendant asserts that we must infer that the sentencing court actually
intended to impose the minimum fine, there being no other rational explanation for
its action. The People counter that this is mere speculation. We agree. The
sentencing court might not have realized that it could have imposed the lesser fine,
but, on the other hand, it might also have decided that it was more appropriate to
impose the fine that was the currently prevailing standard.
More importantly, defendant raised no objection in the trial court to the
amount of the fine. As we have indicated, the $240 fine was not an unauthorized
sentence so defendant forfeited his objection to the amount by failing to raise the
issue in the trial court. (People v. Garcia, supra, 185 Cal.App.4th 1203, 1218.)
3
DISPOSITION
The judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
KING
J.
We concur:
RICHLI
Acting P. J.
MILLER
J.
4