P. v. Vickers CA1/5, A135378

Vickers pled guilty to being a felon in possession of a firearm (Former § 12021, subd. (a)(1)) and admitted a prior felony attempted grand theft; two-year state prison sentence imposed March 20, 2012.
The minute order shows a proposed disposition with a $240 restitution fine; plea colloquy did not discuss the fine.
The court imposed the $240 restitution fine and a $240 parole revocation fine, the latter to be suspended; no objection was raised at sentencing.
On May 1, 2012, Vickers filed a notice of appeal asserting the denial of a motion to suppress under § 1538.5; no direct challenge to sentencing was raised in the appeal.
Vickers contends the $240 fines violate ex post facto constraints; People contend the fines were plea- bargain conditions or discretionary, leading to a dispute over proper imposition.
The Court of Appeal affirms, holding the fines were within the statutory minimums and not unauthorized, and that objections and the appeal were forfeited or improperly framed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the restitution and parole fines violate ex post facto law	Vickers: fines are punitive and changed by statute, violating ex post facto.	People: fines are part of the plea and sentence and may be mandatory.	No ex post facto violation; fines within statutory minimums and discretionary range.
Whether the fines were properly due and not unauthorized	Vickers: the higher minimums under amended statute apply retroactively.	People: fines are within the applicable discretionary range and minimums; not unauthorized.	Fine amount within the statute’s range; not an unauthorized sentence.
Whether Vickers preserved sentencing error given waiver/notice issues	Vickers: (implied) error in sentencing; should be reviewed.	People: timely objections not made; appellate notice insufficient to preserve claim.	Waived; appeal not properly framed to challenge sentencing.

People v. Tillman, 22 Cal.4th 300 (2000) (mandatory restitution fine with record reasons requirement; authority for argument about reasons for not imposing)
People v. Scott, 9 Cal.4th 331 (1994) (welcomes timely objections for discretionary sentencing choices; waiver principle)
Newman v. Los Angeles Transit Lines, 120 Cal.App.2d 685 (1953) (presumption that official duty has been regularly performed)
In re B.A., 141 Cal.App.4th 1411 (2006) (presumption that court followed applicable law in sentencing)
People v. Sullivan, 151 Cal.App.4th 524 (2007) (support for evidentiary and sentencing presumptions)
People v. Saelee, 35 Cal.App.4th 27 (1995) (restitution as punishment for purposes of ex post facto)