People v. Davis

Opinion

EPSTEIN, P. J.

In this case we hold that the new $30 to $35 court facilities fee imposed by Government Code section 70373 does not apply to cases in which the defendant’s conviction, by plea or jury verdict, was rendered before the January 1, 2009 effective date of the statute. Earlier published opinions have held that the rules against ex post facto laws and for prospective application of a new statute are not offended where the offense was committed before the effective date but the plea, verdict or sentence occurred after that date. In this brief opinion, we fill in what may be the last remaining gap about application of this small fee.

The principal provision of the new law provides: “To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, an assessment shall be imposed on every conviction for a criminal offense, including a traffic offense, except parking offenses . . . .” The assessment is $30 for every misdemeanor or felony, and $35 for nonparking infractions. (Gov. Code, § 70373, subd. (a)(1).) It was enacted in 2008 as “part of a broader legislative scheme in which filing fees in civil, family, and probate cases were also raised.”

(People

v.

Fleury

(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1486, 1489 [106 Cal.Rptr.3d 722].) Since its history and substance demonstrate that it is not a penal statute, in terms or effect, its application to crimes committed before the effective date does not offend the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

(Id.

at pp. 1488, 1490, 1493;

People v. Castillo

(2010) 182 Cal.App.4th 1410, 1414 [106 Cal.Rptr.3d 688];

People

v.

Brooks

(2009) 175 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, 4 [99 Cal.Rptr.3d 221].) The

Fleury

and

Castillo

cases recognize that the phrasing of the statute is similar to the language of the court security fee law (Pen. Code, § 1465.8), which our Supreme Court held did not violate the ex post facto rule.