People v. High

• Decision Date: 28 June 2004
• Docket Number: No. C044943.,C044943.
• Citation: 15 Cal.Rptr.3d 148,119 Cal.App.4th 1192
• Parties: The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Daniel Grady HIGH, Defendant and Appellant.
• Court: California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

15 Cal.Rptr.3d 148

119 Cal.App.4th 1192

The PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Daniel Grady HIGH, Defendant and Appellant.

No. C044943.

Court of Appeal, Third District.

June 28, 2004.

William Davies, Sacramento, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, Assistant Attorney General, J. Robert Jibson and Judy Kaida, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

DAVIS, Acting P.J.

Defendant Daniel Grady High had a series of encounters with the Chico police, the Butte County Sheriff's Department, and the Butte Interagency Narcotics Task Force between February 2002 and January 2003. He pleaded no contest to receiving stolen property (Pen.Code, § 496, subd. (a) — count 4B) in case No. CM016824; no contest to second degree burglary of a vehicle (Pen.Code, § 459 — count 1C) in case No. CM017853; no contest to manufacturing methamphetamine (Health & Saf.Code, § 11379.6, subd. (a) — count 1A) in case No. CM018323; and no contest to possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf.Code, § 11378 — count 2D) in case No. CM018439, and admitted he was on bail at the time of the last offense (Pen.Code, § 12022.1).¹

On July 7, 2003, the trial court sentenced defendant in all four cases. It imposed a total prison sentence of 11 years and imposed various fees, fines, and penalties. On appeal, defendant asks that we (1) correct clerical errors in the abstract of judgment; and (2) strike the state surcharge (Pen.Code, § 1465.7) on count 1C and the state court facilities construction penalty (Gov.Code, § 70372) on counts 1A and 1C because they violate the ex post facto clauses of the federal and state Constitutions. We shall do so and affirm the judgment as modified.

DISCUSSION

I. Prohibitions Against Punishments Imposed Ex Post Facto

In the context before us, a prohibited ex post facto law is a retrospective statute that increases a punishment beyond that applicable at the time the crime was committed. In Stogner v. California (2003) 539 U.S. 607, 123 S.Ct. 2446, 156 L.Ed.2d 544 (Stogner), the United States Supreme Court explained that the United States Constitution's ex post facto clause prohibits the federal government and the states "from enacting statutes with `manifestly unjust and oppressive' retroactive effects." (539 U.S. at p. 607, 123 S.Ct. at p. 2447, 156 L.Ed.2d at p. 551, italics omitted, citing Calder v. Bull (1798) 3 U.S. (3 Dallas) 386, 391, 1 L.Ed. 648 (Calder).) "Each time a statute has been challenged as being in conflict with the constitutional prohibitions against bills of attainder and ex post facto laws, it has been necessary to determine whether a penal law was involved, because these provisions apply only to statutes imposing penalties." (Trop v. Dulles (1958) 356 U.S. 86, 95-96, 78 S.Ct. 590, 2 L.Ed.2d 630, fns. omitted.)

In 1990, in Collins v. Youngblood, the United States Supreme Court described a three-part test for determining whether a law is penal in nature. Quoting Beazell v. Ohio (1925) 269 U.S. 167, 46 S.Ct. 68, 70 L.Ed. 216, the court stated: "`It is settled, by decisions of this Court so well known that their citation may be dispensed with, that any statute which punishes as a crime an act previously committed, which was innocent when done; which makes more burdensome the punishment for a crime, after its commission, or which deprives one charged with crime of any defense available according to law at the time when the act was committed, is prohibited as ex post facto.'" (Collins v. Youngblood (1990) 497 U.S. 37, 42, 110 S.Ct. 2715, 111 L.Ed.2d 30, quoting Beazell, supra, 269 U.S. at pp. 169-170, 46 S.Ct. 68, italics added.)

In Tapia v. Superior Court (1991) 53 Cal.3d 282, 295-297, 279 Cal.Rptr. 592, 807 P.2d 434, the California Supreme Court concluded that article I, section 10, clause 1 of the United States Constitution provides the same protection from ex post facto laws as article I, section 9 of the California Constitution, and adopted the Collins/Beazell test in California. (See also People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81, 84, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850, 840 P.2d 955 (McVickers).)

In People v. Rivera (1998) 65 Cal. App.4th 705, 708-709, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 703 (Rivera), we cited the "more burdensome" test to hold that a booking fee and a jail classification fee (Gov.Code, § 29550.2, subd. (a)) did not run afoul of the prohibition against ex post facto laws. We explained, "In assessing whether a statute imposes punishment, we inquire (1) whether the Legislature intended the sanction to be punitive and, if not, (2) whether the sanction is so punitive in effect as to prevent the court from legitimately viewing it as regulatory or civil in nature, despite the Legislature's intent." (Rivera at p. 709, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 703.) "`The first part of the test ("intent") looks solely to the declared purpose of the legislature as well as the structure and design of the statute. [Citations.] The second part of the test ("effects") requires the party challenging the statute to provide "the clearest proof" that the statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the State's nonpunitive intent. [Citations.]'" (Id. at p. 710, 76 Cal.Rptr.2d 703, quoting Russell v. Gregoire (9th Cir.1997) 124 F.3d 1079, 1087.)

II. Penal Code Section 1465.7 and Government Code Section 70372

The parties agree that Penal Code section 1465.7 (state surcharge on fines) became effective after the date defendant committed the offense charged in count 1C, and that Government Code section 70372 (state court facilities construction penalty) became effective after the dates defendant committed the offenses charged in counts 1A and 1C.² The Attorney General correctly concedes that imposition of the Penal Code section 1465.7 $2 state surcharge on fines for the theft-related offense in count 1C violates state and federal constitutional protections against statutes that make the punishment for a crime more burdensome after its commission. As Justice Mosk observed in McVickers, "Commonly understood definitions of punishment are intuitive: there is little dispute that additional jail time or extra fines are punishment." (McVickers, supra, 4 Cal.4th at p. 84, 13 Cal.Rptr.2d 850, 840 P.2d 955.) The surcharge mandated by Penal Code section 1465.7, like its companion penalty assessment set forth in section 1464, is a "garden variety" fine calculated on the size and severity of the base fine imposed. It does not purport to reimburse government for an expense incurred. Rather, the revenue collected is deposited in the State General Fund.

The Attorney General contends that imposition of the Government Code section 70372 state court facilities construction penalty in counts 1A and 1C is not similarly barred. Citing our opinion in Rivera, the Attorney General maintains that the state court facilities construction penalty "is more in the nature of a user fee than a penalty for criminal behavior." We therefore focus our discussion on Government Code section 70372.

The Legislature enacted Government Code section 70372 as part of the Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002. (Stats.2002, ch. 1082, § 4 (Sen. Bill No. 1732 (2001-2002 Reg. Sess.).) The Lockyer-Isenberg Trial Court Funding Act of 1997 (the 1997 Act) had shifted funding of trial courts from counties to the state in order to provide a more stable funding source for trial court operations. (Sen. Com. on Judiciary, Analysis of Sen. Bill No. 1732 (2002 Reg. Sess.) as amended Apr. 11, 2002, p. 1 (Judiciary Com. Analysis).) The 1997 Act also created a Task Force on Court Facilities (the Task Force) that was asked to review the status of court facilities and recommend how to allocate funding responsibilities for maintenance and construction between counties and the state. (Ibid.)

The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 was the first of what was expected to be a series of bills to implement the recommendations of the Task Force. (Judiciary Com. Analysis, supra, p. 2.) Senate Bill No. 1732 created a new fund, the Court Facilities Trust Fund, for the deposit of county payments for the operation and maintenance of court facilities transferred to the state. The fund would also be a source of funding to implement Task Force recommendations regarding repair, renovation, modification, and construction of court facilities. (Id., p. 3.) According to the staff analysis, the projected average cost of court facilities renovation, remodeling, expansion and construction would be $384.6 million per year for the next 10 years. (Id., p. 7.) Senate Bill No. 1732 proposed increases in fees, fines and penalties imposed in both civil and criminal proceedings to fund the needed construction. (Id., pp. 3-4, 7; see Gov.Code, §§ 70372, 70373, 70373.5.) The new penalties would "supplant existing penalties now authorized by statute for counties to collect." (Judiciary Com. Analysis, supra, at p. 9.)

Although the Legislature enacted Government Code section 70372 as a method of increasing the funds available to remodel, renovate and construct new state court facilities, the structure, operative principle, and descriptive language chosen reflect a penal purpose as well.

The state court facilities construction penalty is not simply a "user fee" as argued by the Attorney General. If it were a user fee, there would be a rational relationship between the amount of the assessment and the extent of the individual defendant's use. Unlike the booking fee and jail classification fee in Rivera, which were based on actual administrative costs, the state court facilities construction penalty is calculated on "every fine, penalty, or forfeiture imposed and collected by the courts for criminal offenses" at the rate of $5 for every $10. The penalty imposed tracks the seriousness of the underlying offense and its base penalty. The prospect of its imposition therefore has a...