Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County No. BA165439 Ann I. Jones, Judge.
Law Offices of Allen G. Weinberg and Derek K. Kowata, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Susan Sullivan Pithey and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
KRIEGLER, J.
A Los Angeles jury found defendant and appellant Gregory Gadlin guilty of assaulting Tamara Rector with a deadly weapon in violation of Penal Code section 245, subdivision (a)(1), with a special finding that the prosecution satisfied the three-year statute of limitations. Defendant received a third strike sentence of 25 years to life, enhanced by an additional 10 years under section 667, subdivision (a)(1). As is pertinent here, the court imposed and stayed a $600 parole revocation fine under section 1202.45. In his timely appeal, he contends—and the Attorney General concedes—imposition of the parole revocation fine was proscribed by the federal Constitution’s ex post facto clause because section 1202.45 was enacted after defendant committed the underlying assault. We agree.
All further statutory citations are to the Penal Code.
The evidence showed that on July 26, 1994, defendant argued with Rector, before taking a large kitchen knife and repeatedly slashing her face, body, and hand as she tried to defend herself. Section 1202.45, which requires imposition of a parole revocation fine, became effective on August 3, 1995. (Stats. 1995, ch. 313 (A.B. 817) § 6.) The decision of People v. Callejas (2000) 85 Cal.App.4th 667 is on point. In Callejas, our colleagues in Division Seven applied Johnson v. United States (2000) 529 U.S. 694 to hold “[i]mposition of a parole revocation fine under section 1202.45 is clearly a postrevocation penalty and, under Johnson, we must ‘attribute postrevocation penalties to the original conviction.’ Therefore, applying section 1202.45 to Callejas, whose underlying crime preceded the enactment of that statute, would violate ex post facto principles.” (People v. Callejas, supra, 85 Cal.App.4th at p. 678, fns. omitted.) The same is true in defendant’s case.
DISPOSITION
The $600 probation revocation fine imposed pursuant to section 1202.45 is ordered stricken. The clerk of the superior court is instructed to prepare an amended abstract of judgment reflecting that change and to deliver a copy to the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. The judgment is affirmed in all other respects.
We concur: TURNER, P. J., MOSK, J.