Legal Opinion

People v. Alford

California Supreme Court

Decided December 3, 2007No. S142508PublishedCited by 100 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Opinion

CORRIGAN, J.

Penal Code section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1)1 requires the imposition of a $20 court security fee “on every conviction for a criminal offense . . . .” The questions here are whether the fee is subject to section 3’s general prohibition against retroactive application of a newly enacted law, and whether imposition of the fee for a crime committed before the effective date of the statute violates state and federal prohibitions against ex post facto laws. We hold that section 3 is not implicated and that the fee does not violate the prohibition against ex post facto laws.

Factu…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Weaver v. GrahamSupreme Court of the United States · 1981
  2. Kennedy v. Mendoza-MartinezSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
  3. Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
  4. In Re EstradaCalifornia Supreme Court · 1965
  5. California Department of Corrections v. MoralesSupreme Court of the United States · 1995

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by100 opinions

  1. People v. Dueñas, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
  2. People v. McCulloughCalifornia Supreme Court · 2013
  3. People v. CruzCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
  4. People v. AguilarCalifornia Supreme Court · 2015
  5. People v. Santos, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019

95 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API