P. v. Pahulu CA4/2

California Court of Appeal Apr 9, 2013 No. E055471Unpublished

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the imposition of a $240 restitution fine did not violate the ex post facto clause because the amount was within the statutory range available at the time of the offense, and the defendant forfeited the claim by failing to object in the trial court.

Issues

Whether the imposition of a $240 restitution fine violates the ex post facto clause when the statutory minimum was $200 at the time of the offense.
Whether the defendant forfeited his objection to the restitution fine by failing to raise it in the trial court.

Disposition. Affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“defendant’s punishment was not increased beyond what was prescribed when the crimes were committed.”

Filed 4/9/13 P. v. Pahulu CA4/2

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent, E055471

v. (Super.Ct.No. RIF1100419)

WARREN PEPE PAHULU, OPINION

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from the Superior Court of Riverside County. Becky Dugan,

Judge. Affirmed.

Cynthia M. Jones, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for

Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant

Attorney General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Melissa Mandel

and Eric A. Swenson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

BACKGROUND1

Defendant and appellant Warren Pepe Pahulu pleaded guilty to five counts

of forcible lewd and lascivious acts with two children under the age of 14 years.

(Pen. Code, § 288, subd. (b)(1).)2 These acts occurred between October 2007 and

P. v. Pahulu CA4/2

AI Brief

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION TWO

THE PEOPLE,

WARREN PEPE PAHULU, OPINION

BACKGROUND1

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

DISCUSSION

DISPOSITION

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

KING J.

MILLER J.

AI Brief