Ex Post facto

Name: People v. Gray
Case #: B224430
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/14/2011
Subsequent History: 12/14/11 rev. granted (S197749)
  • Categories: Admitting/Excluding, Evidence, Ex Post facto, General Principles, Jury Instructions, One Strike Priors, Sentencing

Every lewd act is also a battery, therefore the court has a sua sponte duty to instruct on battery (Pen. Code, sec. 242), as a lesser included offense of a lewd and lascivious act (Pen. Code, sec. 288, subd. (a)).…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Brooks
Case #: 8-Sep
Court: CA Superior Court
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/24/2009
  • Categories: Ex Post facto, Fines/Fees/Assessments, Sentencing

The criminal conviction assessment authorized by Government Code section 70373, subdivision (a)(1) does not constitute a prohibited ex post facto law. Section 70373, subdivision (a)(1), effective on January 1, 2009, requires imposition of a $30 assessment for each misdemeanor or…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Valenzuela
Case #: B209837
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 5
Opinion Date: 04/07/2009
  • Categories: Ex Post facto, Fines/Fees/Assessments, Sentencing

Under ex post facto principles, the accessible amount of a sex offender fine must be calculated as of the date of the offense. Appellant was convicted of a sex offense that occurred in 2003 and 2004, and, as a result…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Reyes
Case #: B186285
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 07/28/2008
  • Categories: Credits, Ex Post facto, Presentation of Evidence, Sentencing, Trial Proceedings

A co-defendant's plea agreement requiring him to testify fully and truthfully at appellant's proceedings, in exchange for the promised benefit, does not deny appellant a fair trial. At the beginning of the third murder trial involving appellant and the co-defendant,…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. High
Case #: C044943
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 3 DCA
Opinion Date: 06/28/2004
  • Categories: Ex Post facto, Fines/Fees/Assessments, Sentencing

A new state penalty that is calculated as a percentage of overall fines imposed is penal in nature and may not be imposed retroactively. The defendant here asked the appellate court to strike the state surcharge imposed under Penal Code…

View Full Summary
Name: Stogner v. California
Case #: 01-1757
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 06/26/2003
Subsequent History: Cross-cite: 156 L.Ed.2d 544
  • Categories: Ex Post facto, Sentencing

A law enacted after expiration of a previously applicable statute of limitations period violates the Ex Post Facto Clause when it is applied to revive a previously time-barred prosecution. The court invalidated California Penal Code section 803, subdivision (g), which…

View Full Summary
Name: Smith v. Doe
Case #: 01-729
Court: US Supreme Court
District USSup
Opinion Date: 03/05/2003
Subsequent History: 4/28/03: rehrg. den.; cross-cites: 123 S.Ct. 1925; 155 L.Ed.2d 844
  • Categories: Civil Commitments, Ex Post facto, Sentencing, SVP

The Alaska Sex Offender Registration Act does not violate the Ex Post Facto Clause because it is a civil, regulatory, non-punitive scheme.

View Full Summary
Name: In re Rosenkrantz
Case #: S104701
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 12/16/2002
Subsequent History: Cert. den. 4/21/03
  • Categories: Ex Post facto, Sentencing

A Governor's decision granting or denying parole pursuant to his authority afforded by California Constitution Article V, section 8(b), which was added to the California Constitution in 1988, is subject to a limited judicial review to determine only whether the…

View Full Summary
Name: In re Oscar R.
Case #: F151004
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 09/12/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 11/27/02: S110830
  • Categories: Ex Post facto, Prop 21 - Gang Violence, Sentencing

Federal and state constitutional prohibitions against ex post facto laws are not violated by the application of Proposition 21 (Welf. & Inst. Code, sec. 777) to probation violations occurring after its effective date, even though the crime for which probation…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Zandrino
Case #: A095434
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 3
Opinion Date: 07/15/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. denied 10/30/02.
  • Categories: Defenses, Ex Post facto, Motion Attacking, Pleadings, Sentencing, Statute of limitations

In this opinion, the First DCA, Division 3, followed the opinion issued by its Division 5 in Stogner v. Superior Court [(2001) 93 Cal. App. 4th 1229], and rejected the contrary holding in Lynch v. Superior Court [(1995) 33 Cal.…

View Full Summary