Relying on Johnson v. United States (2000) — U.S. —, 120 S.Ct. 1795, the Court of Appeal held that imposing a parole revocation fine, pursuant to Penal Code section 1202.45, on a parolee who committed the underlying offense before section 1202.45 was enacted violates the constitutional ban on ex post facto laws under the United States and California constitutions because the fine attaches to the underlying offense, and not to the act giving rise to the revocation. The Court of Appeal modified the judgment by striking the revocation fine.