People v. Buckingham CA5

California Court of Appeal Feb 22, 2016 No. F070002Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the defendant forfeited his sentencing challenges by failing to object in the trial court, and that the challenged fines were legally authorized and did not violate ex post facto laws.

Issues

Whether the trial court erred in imposing a $390 fine without specifying its statutory basis.
Whether the imposition of $300 restitution and parole revocation fines violated ex post facto laws.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“Only a sentence unauthorized as a matter of law is reviewable on appeal in the absence of an objection in the trial court.”

“The $390 fine is authorized by Vehicle Code section 23550 and the imposition of 13 days in custody in lieu of payment of the fine is authorized by Penal Code section 1205, subdivision (a).”

“Therefore, the restitution fine and parole revocation fines in the amount of $300 each are not unauthorized and did not violate ex post facto laws.”

Filed 2/22/16 P. v. Buckingham CA5

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, F070002 Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. BF150614A) v.

JACOB BUCKINGHAM, OPINION Defendant and Appellant.

THE COURT* APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John W. Lua, Judge. Ross Thomas, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Gerald A. Engler, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Daniel B. Bernstein and Jennifer M. Poe, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent. -ooOoo-

* Before Kane, Acting P.J., Franson, J. and Smith, J.

INTRODUCTION Appellant Jacob Buckingham stands convicted of driving under the influence and proximately causing bodily injury; driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol of greater than 0.08 percent and causing injury; driving on a suspended license; and misdemeanor child endangerment. In addition, various enhancements were found true. On appeal, Buckingham contends: (1) the imposition of a $300 fine pursuant to Penal Code sections 1202.45 and 1202.4, subdivision (b) violates ex post facto laws and (2) no statutory basis is specified for the imposition of one $390 fine as required by this court’s decision in People v. High (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192 (High). We affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL SUMMARY Buckingham was driving the morning of August 24, 2013; his teenage son was in the vehicle with him. Buckingham failed to heed a stop sign and struck another vehicle containing five people. The California Highway Patrol was on the scene almost immediately. Buckingham failed a field sobriety test and it was determined he had a blood-alcohol of 0.20 percent. Buckingham was charged with driving under the influence and proximately causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (a)); driving under the influence with a blood-alcohol greater than 0.08 percent and causing bodily injury (Veh. Code, § 23153, subd. (b)); willful harm or injury to a child (Pen. Code § 273a, subd. (a)); and driving on a suspended license (Veh. Code, § 14601.1, subd. (a)). As to each of the driving under the influence counts, it was alleged that Buckingham had a blood-alcohol level of 0.15 percent or more (Veh. Code, § 23578); five great bodily injury enhancements were alleged (Pen. Code, § 12022.7); and five enhancements of causing bodily injury to more than one victim (Veh. Code, § 23558). On July 9, 2014, Buckingham entered a plea of no contest to a misdemeanor charge of driving with a suspended license. On July 18, 2014, a jury found Buckingham guilty of both driving under the influence counts and the lesser included offense of

People v. Buckingham CA5

AI Brief

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief