Legal Opinion
People v. Fleury
California Court of Appeal
Decided March 19, 2010No. C061629PublishedCited by 19 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
BLEASE, J.
The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether imposition of the $30 court facilities assessment mandated by Government Code 1 section 70373 for crimes committed before the enactment of the statute violates state and federal prohibitions against ex post facto laws. We find that the Legislature did not intend for the assessment to constitute punishment, and that the assessment is not so punitive as to override the Legislature’s intent. (People v. Alford (2007) 42 Cal.4th 749, 756 [68 Cal.Rptr.3d 310, 171 P.3d 32] (Alford).) Thus, we shall conclude the assessment does not…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Smith v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2003
- People v. AlfordCalifornia Supreme Court · 2007
- People v. HighCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
- People v. McVickersCalifornia Supreme Court · 1992
- People v. WallaceCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2004
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- People v. Dueñas, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- People v. SencionCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2012
- People v. DavisCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
- People v. PinonCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2016
- People v. LopezCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2010
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.