People v. Houlet

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOBBIE CHRISTINE HOULET…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Yuba

Date published: Oct 17, 2008

No. C057909 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 17, 2008)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. BOBBIE CHRISTINE HOULET, Defendant and Appellant. C057909 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Yuba October 17, 2008

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. CRF03709

HULL, J.

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 defendant’s crime was committed between March and June 2003. Accordingly, the probation revocation fine must be stricken.

1 We further note that the abstract of judgment erroneously indicates that the probation revocation fine was imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.4 5. 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.

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 defendant’s 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.

We concur: SIMS , Acting P.J., DAVIS , J.