People v. Brooks

In People v. Brooks (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th Supp. 1, the acts underlying the criminal convictions occurred in May 2008, approximately seven months before section 70373(a)(1) became effective on January 1, 2009. (Id. at p. Supp. 3.) The defendant argued that imposing the assessment against him violated ex post facto principles. (Ibid.) The court disagreed, applying the analysis the Supreme Court utilized in Alford, supra, 42 Cal.4th 749, concluding that the assessment under section 70373(a)(1) was not punitive. (Brooks, at Supp. 7.) The court observed that the language of section 70373(a)(1) was similar to that of Penal Code section 1465.8 addressed in Alford. (Brooks, at Supp. 5.) Based upon five factors that had been identified by the Supreme Court in Alford, the superior court appellate division concluded that the challenged assessment under section 70373(a)(1) was not a form of punishment and therefore its imposition was not barred by ex post facto principles: "1. The stated purpose of the section 70373(a)(1) assessment is to ensure and maintain adequate funding for court facilities, not to punish. 2. It is also part of a broad legislative scheme in which civil fees were also raised to fund courthouse construction. 3. It is termed an 'assessment,' not a fine or a penalty. 4. The $ 30 is larger than the $ 20 approved in Alford, but still relatively small. 5. The amount of the assessment is not dependent on the seriousness of the offense." (Brooks, at Supp. 6.)