1 Filed 6/24/15 P. v. Beck CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Butte)

----

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent,

v. SHANIKA CATRICE BECK, Defendant and Appellant. C077654 (Super. Ct. No. CM034427)

On June 14, 2011, defendant Shanika Ca trice Beck pleaded guilty to possessing a controlled substance on April 16 of that same year. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11350, subd. (a).) After several failures to appear in connection with a defe rred entry of judgment program, defendant appeared for sentencing on September 24, 2014. Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that the trial court’s imposition of a $300 restitution fine at sentencing violated ex post fact o principles. Because the cl aim is forfeited, we affirm.2 DISCUSSION
The facts of defendant’s conviction are irre levant to our determ ination of her claim on appeal. It suffices to say that the trial court imposed a $300 res titution fine pursuant to
Penal Code section 12 02.4, subdivision (b)(1) 1 at defendant’s sentencing. Section 1202.4, subdivision (b)(1) provides in relevant part that every defendant is subject to a separate and additional restitution fine, at the discretion of the trial court. At the time of defendant’s offense, the permissible range of the fine was $200 to $10,000. (Stats. 2010, ch. 351, § 9.) Although th e minimum fine had been increased to $300 by the time of defendant’s sentencing, defendant was still eligible for the earlier minimum fine of $200 based on the date of her offense. (Stats. 201 1, ch. 358, § 1.) The trial court stated its intent to impose the “minimal fines” and th en imposed a $300 restitu tion fine. There was no objection. Defendant now argues that the imposition of the $300 fi ne was an ex post facto penalty and must be reduced to $200 to reflec t the statutory minimum in effect at the time of her April 2011 offense. She has, howeve r, forfeited any claim of error by her failure to object in the trial court. She cannot avoid our determination of forfeiture by characterizing the $300 fine as “unauthori zed.” “Although the cases are varied, a sentence is generally ‘unauthorized’ where it could not lawfully be imposed under any circumstance in the particular case.” ( People v. Scott (1994) 9 Cal.4th 331, 354.) Here, the $300 fine (or even a $10,000 fine) coul d be lawfully imposed in April 2011 and was
therefore not unauthor ized when imposed in September 2014. Because the $300 fine was not unauthorized, defendant forfeited any claim that the trial court mistakenly imposed an amount above her applicable minimum fine by not objecting at the sentencing hearing. “Although the court is required to impose sentence

1 Further undesignated statutory re ferences are to the Penal Code.3 in a lawful manner, counsel is charged with understanding, advoc ating, and clarifying permissible sentencing choices at the hearing. Routine defect s in the court’s statement of reasons are easily prevented and corrected if ca lled to the court’s attention. As in other waiver cases, we hope to reduce the number of errors committed in the first instance and preserve the judicial resources othe rwise used to correct them.” ( People v. Scott, supra , 9 Cal.4th at p. 353.) Here, had defendant ob jected, the trial court could have corrected any misunderstanding about the discretionary amount of the fine. Defendant may not request correction for the first time on appeal.
DISPOSITION The judgment is affirmed.

DUARTE , J.

We concur:

RAYE , P. J.

ROBIE , J.