People v. Mulkey CA3

Filed 8/6/14 P. v. Mulkey CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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, C074046

v. (Super. Ct. No. CRF1212)

SAMSON AARON MULKEY,

Defendant and Appellant.

Defendant Samson Aaron Mulkey pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. The trial court placed defendant on probation and, among other things, imposed a $240 restitution fine. After defendant subsequently admitted violating probation, the trial court sentenced him to six years in prison and, as is relevant to this appeal, continued the previously imposed $240 restitution fine.

1

Defendant now contends (1) the trial court abused its discretion and violated ex post facto principles by imposing the $240 restitution fine, because the minimum restitution fine at the time of defendant’s crime was $200; and (2) if his first contention is forfeited, he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Finding no merit to defendant’s contentions, we will affirm the judgment. BACKGROUND On December 31, 2011, defendant (who was 16 years old at the time) and others aided and abetted Marcus Hume in fatally shooting Steven Moore. Defendant pleaded no contest to voluntary manslaughter. (Pen. Code, § 192, subd. (a).)1 The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed defendant on probation for five years with various terms and conditions, including that defendant abstain from alcohol and that he pay a $240 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)(1)) and a $240 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44). Defendant subsequently admitted violating probation. The trial court declined to reinstate probation and sentenced defendant to the middle term of six years for the voluntary manslaughter conviction. In addition, the trial court continued the $240 restitution fine previously imposed pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1), lifted the stay on the previously imposed $240 probation revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.44, and imposed a $240 parole revocation fine pursuant to section 1202.45. DISCUSSION I Defendant contends the trial court abused its discretion and violated ex post facto principles by imposing the $240 restitution fine, because the minimum restitution fine at the time of defendant’s crime was $200.