Legal Opinion
People v. Palomar
California Court of Appeal
Decided June 10, 1985No. Crim. 13558PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BLEASE, J.
Defendant challenges the “restitution fine” imposed following his plea of guilty to the offense of forgery (Pen. Code, § 470) because it was predicated upon a statute (Pen. Code, § 1202.4) which became “operative” after the date of his offense. He claims that it cannot apply to him. The claim has merit and we will modify the sentence accordingly.
The pertinent facts are few. Defendant pleaded guilty to the count in an information which alleged that he committed the offense of forgery on or about October 31, 1983. On March 28, 1984, he was sentenced to 16 months in state prison…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- In Re EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
- Thomson v. CallCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- People v. HendersonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1980
- Fox v. AlexisCalifornia Supreme Court · 1985
- Busch v. TurnerCalifornia Supreme Court · 1945
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by10 opinions
- Preston v. State Board of EqualizationCalifornia Supreme Court · 2001
- STATE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION TRADES COUNCIL v. DuncanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2008
- People v. CambaCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1996
- People v. Vega-HernandezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1986
- People v. DowningCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1985
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.