Title: P. v. Alford
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: S142508
State: California
Issuer: California Supreme Court
Date: December 3, 2007

Filed 12/3/07 
 
 
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 
 
THE PEOPLE, 
) 
 
 
) 
 
Plaintiff and Respondent, 
) 
 
 
) 
S142508 
 
v. 
) 
 
 
) 
Ct.App. 1/1 A109478 
TRACY F. ALFORD, 
) 
 
) 
Alameda County 
 
Defendant and Appellant. 
) 
Super. Ct. No. 146177 
___________________________________ ) 
 
 
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.   
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
On June 10, 2003, Tracy F. Alford (defendant) robbed a grocery store in 
Oakland.  He was charged with second degree robbery and personal use of a 
firearm.  Defendant was also alleged to have eight prior serious felony 
convictions.     
                                              
1 
Unless otherwise stated, all statutory references are to the Penal Code.   
 
2
On January 18, 2005, defendant was convicted of robbery, but not gun use.  
In a bifurcated jury trial, the prior convictions were found true. 
Defendant was sentenced to prison for 40 years to life.  The court also 
imposed the court security fee under section 1465.8, which took effect shortly 
after the defendant committed the robbery, but before he was convicted.  The 
Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment, including imposition of the court security 
fee.  Here we consider only the fee’s imposition.   
DISCUSSION 
The court security fee is set out in section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) 
(section 1465.8(a)(1)), which provides in pertinent part:  “To ensure and maintain 
adequate funding for court security, a fee of twenty dollars ($20) shall be imposed 
on every conviction for a criminal offense, including a traffic offense, except 
parking offenses as defined in subdivision (i) of Section 1463, involving a 
violation of a section of the Vehicle Code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant 
to the Vehicle Code.”  Section 1465.8 was enacted as part of Assembly Bill No. 
1759 (Assembly Bill 1759.)  (Stats. 2003, ch. 159, § 25.)  It became operative on 
August 17, 2003, approximately two months after defendant robbed the grocery 
store.  (Stats. 2003, ch. 159, §§ 25, 27.)2  As explained in greater detail below, the 
                                              
2  
“ ‘The effective date [of a statute] is . . .  the date upon which the statute 
came into being as an existing law.’  [Citation.]  ‘[T]he operative date is the date 
upon which the directives of the statute may be actually implemented.’  [Citation.]  
Although the effective and operative dates of a statute are often the same, the 
Legislature may ‘postpone the operation of certain statutes until a later time.’  
[Citation.]”  (Preston v. State Bd. of Equalization (2001)  25 Cal.4th 197, 223.)  
 
Assembly Bill 1759 became effective on August 2, 2003.  According to 
Assembly Bill 1759, section 1465.8 was to become operative on the 15th day after 
the effective date of the bill, or on July 1, 2003, whichever was later, contingent 
on specified appropriations in the Budget Act of 2003. The Budget Act of 2003, 
which was effective on August 2, 2003, included these appropriations.  Thus, 
section 1465.8 became operative on August 17, 2003.  (See Stats. 2003, ch. 159, § 
27.) 
 
3
Assembly Bill 1759 was one of a number of trailer bills related to the 2003-2004 
State Budget. 
 
Penal Code Section 3 
 
Defendant urges that imposition of the fee is barred because his criminal 
conduct occurred before the law’s effective date.  Defendant relies on Penal Code 
section 3, which provides:  “No part of [the Penal Code] is retroactive, unless 
expressly so declared.”  (Italics added.)  We have previously construed the statute 
to mean, “[a] new statute is generally presumed to operate prospectively absent an 
express declaration of retroactivity or a clear and compelling implication that the 
Legislature intended otherwise.  [Citation.]”    (People v. Hayes (1989) 49 Cal.3d 
1260, 1274.) 
 
As its own language makes clear, section 3 is not intended to be a 
“straitjacket.”  “Where the Legislature has not set forth in so many words what it 
intended, the rule of construction should not be followed blindly in complete 
disregard of factors that may give a clue to the legislative intent.  It is to be applied 
only after, considering all pertinent factors, it is determined that it is impossible to 
ascertain the legislative intent.”  (In re Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 746.)  Even 
without an express declaration, a statute may apply retroactively if there is “ ‘a 
clear and compelling implication’ ” that the Legislature intended such a result.  
(People v. Grant (1999) 20 Cal.4th 150, 157 (Grant) quoting People v. Hayes, 
supra, 49 Cal.3d at p. 1274).) 
Section 1465.8’s legislative history supports the conclusion the Legislature 
intended to impose the court security fee to all convictions after its operative date.   
 
The fee was projected to generate $34 million in revenue and the Budget 
Act of 2003 reduced, by that same amount, support for the trial courts from the 
General Fund.  (Assem. Com. on Budget, Enrolled Bill Rep. on Assem. Bill 1759 
(2003-2004 Reg. Sess.) July 27, 2003, p. 7; Legis. Analyst, Rep. to Joint Legis. 
Budget Com., analysis of 2003-2004 Budget Bill, Assem. Bill 1759 (2003-2004 
Reg. Sess.) p. 5.)  We are persuaded that the Legislature necessarily anticipated 
 
4
the full realization of the $34 million to be generated by the court security fee 
during the budget year.  This intent is clearly manifest in its action to reduce 
General Fund financing for the year by that concomitant amount.  Imposing the 
court security fee only on defendants who committed a crime after section 1465.8 
became operative would not have produced the needed revenue in the budget year.  
The income would only be realized at some future time as the cases wended their 
way through the system.  The enactment of section 1465.8 as part of an urgency 
measure to implement the Budget Act of 2003 reveals the Legislature’s intent to 
implement the directives of section 1465.8 immediately after it became operative.  
(Stats. 2003, ch. 159, § 29 [“In order to provide for changes to implement the 
Budget Act of 2003, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately”].)   
 
Defendant argues that because section 1465.8 did not become operative on 
the same date it became effective, the Legislature could not have intended it to 
take effect immediately.  We disagree.  “[T]he postponement of the operative date 
of the legislation . . . does not mean that the Legislature intended to limit its 
application to transactions occurring after that date.  [Citation.] . . . .  The 
Legislature may do so for reasons other than an intent to give the statute 
prospective effect.  For example, the Legislature may delay the operation of a 
statute to allow ‘persons and agencies affected by it to become aware of its 
existence and to comply with its terms.’  [Citation.]  In addition, the Legislature 
may wish ‘to give lead time to the governmental authorities to establish machinery 
for the operation of or implementation of the new law.’  [Citation.]  A later 
operative date may also ‘provide time for emergency clean-up amendments and 
the passage of interrelated legislation.’  [Citation.]  Finally, a later operative date 
may simply be ‘a date of convenience . . . for bookkeeping, retirement or other 
reasons.’  [Citation.]”  (Preston v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 25 Cal.4th at 
pp. 223-224.)  This case is an example of how and why the Legislature uses 
delayed operation provisions.  Section 1465.8 became operative only if certain 
other provisions of the Budget Act of 2003 were enacted.  (Stats. 2003, ch. 159, § 
 
5
27.)  The $20 court security fee was just one of a number of surcharges 
implemented by the Legislature when it enacted Assembly Bill 1759.  (People v. 
Wallace (2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 867, 875-876.)  Thus, it is understandable that 
the Legislature prudently delayed the operative date of section 1465.8 to ensure 
that the Budget Act of 2003 was enacted.  The delayed operation also ensured that 
the courts were prepared to establish collection procedures for the fees.  (Preston 
v. State Bd. of Equalization, supra, 25 Cal.4th at pp. 223-224.)  
 
The legislative history of section 1465.8 makes clear that the Legislature 
intended the fee to operate as quickly as feasible, consistent with the overall goals 
of the Budget Act of 2003.  Thus, we conclude that section 3 is not implicated in 
this case. 
The ex post facto prohibitions 
Article I, section 10, clause 1 of the federal Constitution and article I, 
section 9 of the state Constitution prohibit the passage of ex post facto laws.  
(Grant, supra, 20 Cal.4th at p.158.)  California’s ex post facto law is analyzed in 
the same manner as the federal prohibition.  (Ibid.)  “[T]he ex post facto clauses of 
the state and federal Constitutions are ‘aimed at laws that “retroactively alter the 
definition of crimes or increase the punishment for criminal acts.” ’ ”  (Grant, at p. 
158 quoting California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales (1995) 514 U.S. 499, 
504.)  Here, the court security fee does not alter the definition of a crime; the 
question is whether it increases punishment.  In making this determination we 
consider “whether the Legislature intended the provision to constitute punishment 
and, if not, whether the provision is so punitive in nature or effect that it must be 
found to constitute punishment despite the Legislature’s contrary intent.”  (People 
v. Castellanos (1999) 21 Cal.4th 785, 795.)   
“If the intention of the legislature was to impose punishment, that ends the 
inquiry.  If, however, the intention was to enact a regulatory scheme that is civil 
and nonpunitive, we must further examine whether the statutory scheme is ‘ “so 
punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate [the State’s] intention” to deem it 
 
6
“civil.” ’  [Citations.]  Because we ‘ordinarily defer to the legislature’s stated 
intent,’ [citation], ‘ “only the clearest proof ” ’ will suffice to override legislative 
intent and transform what has been denominated a civil remedy into a criminal 
penalty, ’ [citations].”  (Smith v. Doe (2003) 538 U.S. 84, 92; see also People v. 
Castellanos, supra, 21 Cal.4th at pp. 794-795.)   
The legislative history demonstrates that the court security fee was enacted 
as part of an emergency budgetary measure for the nonpunitive purpose of funding 
court security.  (People v. Wallace, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at pp. 874-878.) 3  
“The stated reason for enacting the $20 court security fee appears in section 
1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), ‘To ensure and maintain adequate funding for court 
security . . . .’  The maintenance of ‘adequate funding for court security’ purposes 
is unambiguously a nonpunitive objective.  Assembly Bill No. 1759 was one of 24 
trailer bills which were part of a ‘mechanism to implement critical provisions’ of 
the fiscal year 2003-2004 state budget.  (Assem. 3d reading analysis of Assem. 
Bill No. 1759, as introduced Mar. 11, 2003, p. 1.)  The only expressed rationale 
for making Assembly Bill No. 1759 an urgency statute was a budgetary reason, ‘In 
order to provide for changes to implement the Budget Act of 2003, it is necessary 
that this act take effect immediately.’  (Stats. 2003, ch. 159, § 29.)  Moreover, the 
$20 court security fee was imposed not merely upon persons convicted of [a] 
crime.  Government Code section 69926.5, subdivision (a), which was adopted 
pursuant to section 19 of Assembly Bill No. 1759, required a $20 court security 
                                              
3  
Wallace also provides an extensive list of the statutory changes contained 
in Assembly Bill 1759 that support the conclusion that the court security fee 
enacted as part of a budget measure.  In addition to imposing the $20 court 
security fee, these changes included, inter alia:  “increases in fees under specified 
circumstances in small claims actions (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.230; Stats. 2003, ch. 
159, §§ 1-2); imposing new costs for issuance of documents relative to the 
enforcement of small claims judgments (Code Civ. Proc., § 116.820; Stats, 2003, 
ch. 159, § 3) . . . increased filing fees in civil actions (Gov. Code, § 26826.4; Stats. 
2003, ch. 159, § 8); increased fees in probate actions (Gov. Code, § 26827; Stats. 
2003, ch. 159, §§ 9-10.”  (People v. Wallace, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 872.) 
 
7
surcharge also be imposed on the first paper filed on behalf of a plaintiff or a 
defendant in any limited and unlimited civil action or special proceeding and in 
probate matters.  (Stats. 2003, ch. 159, § 19; Gov. Code, §§ 26820.4, 26826, 
26827, 72055, 72056.)  Moreover, section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(2) requires that 
the $20 surcharge be imposed when a traffic violation charge is dismissed because 
the alleged violator attends traffic school.  Further, section 1465.8, subdivision (c) 
requires that the $20 court security fee be collected when bail is posted—a 
scenario which includes arrestees who will never be charged in an information, 
indictment, or complaint with a crime.  Additionally, section 1465.8 could only go 
into effect if specified levels of trial court funding were enacted by the Legislature.  
(Stats. 2003, ch. 159, § 27.)  Although it conceivably could happen, it is difficult 
to divine a punitive purpose for a fee that would go into effect only if specified 
trial court funding levels ($2,186,864,000 ‘or more’ for item 0450-101-0932 and 
$1,001,001,000 ‘or more’ for item 0450-111-0001 in the 2003 Budget Act) were 
enacted.  (Ibid.) ”  (Wallace, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at pp. 875-876.) 
The Legislature generally does not adopt punitive statutes that are 
dependent on “trial court funding levels in budget line items.”  (People v. Wallace, 
supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 876.)  The Legislature also referred to the $20 
amount due upon conviction by a nonpunitive term, labeling it as a “fee” and not a 
“fine.”  (Ibid.)  Considering these factors in conjunction with the express 
legislative purpose of “maintain[ing] adequate funding for court security” (§ 
1465.8(a)(1)), the Wallace court concluded the fee was imposed for a nonpunitive 
purpose.  (Wallace, at p. 876.)  Because the legislative intent is clear, the analysis 
is correct.4 
                                              
4  
Defendant notes that Government Code section 69926.5, which is cited in 
People v. Wallace, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th 867, was repealed by its own terms, 
operative January 1, 2006.  (See Stats. 2005, ch. 75, § 115.)  Defendant urges the 
$20 court security fee now only applies to criminal actions and thus reflects the 
Legislature’s intent that the fee is punitive in nature.  This argument fails.   
 
8
The court security fee is not so punitive in nature or effect that it constitutes 
punishment.  The United States Supreme Court has articulated certain 
nonexclusive factors governing this determination.  “The factors most relevant to 
our analysis are whether, in its necessary operation, the regulatory scheme:  has 
been regarded in our history and traditions as a punishment; imposes an 
affirmative disability or restraint; promotes the traditional aims of punishment; has 
a rational connection to a nonpunitive purpose; or is excessive with respect to this 
purpose.”  (Smith v. Doe, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 97; see also Kennedy v. Mendoza-
Martinez (1963) 372 U.S. 144, 168-169.)  Only the “clearest proof” will suffice to 
override the Legislature’s intent and transform a civil remedy into a criminal 
punishment.  (People v. Wallace, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 876.)  We conclude 
the fee is not so punitive as to override the Legislature’s express intent. 
Fines arising from convictions are generally considered punishment.  
(People v. Wallace, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 877.)  However, several 
countervailing considerations undermine a punitive characterization.  The purpose 
                                                                                                                                      
 
 
Government Code section 69926.5 was amended (and repealed by its own 
terms) as part of Assembly Bill 145 which became operative on January 1, 2006.  
However, the Legislature simply replaced this statute with a “uniform civil fee 
structure.”  (Stats. 2005, ch. 75, § 1, subds. (d), (e).) 
 
The uniform civil fee structure was created to, “establish a uniform 
schedule of filing fees and other civil fees for the superior courts.  Among other 
things, [Assembly Bill 145] would generally increase the filing fees for civil 
actions and proceedings, including, but not limited to, those fees related to small 
claims court, motions, appeals, judgments, the filing of the first paper in a civil 
action or proceeding in the superior court, in a limited civil case, and in complex 
cases, and in family law and probate matters, and fees for various certifications, 
recordings, filings, and the authentication of documents.”  (Leg. Counsel’s Dig., 
Assem. Bill 145 (2005-2006 Reg. Sess.).)  The Legislature acted to “streamline 
and simplify civil fees, provide for uniformity in different counties, address the 
funding shortfall occurring under the current fee structure, and significantly 
improve financial stability, accountability, and predictability in the courts.”  (Stats. 
2005, ch. 75, § 1, subd. (d).)  Thus, the legislative changes were made to increase 
efficiency in how civil fees were imposed, and there is no indication that there was 
a change in the Legislature’s intent with respect to section 1465.8.   
 
9
of the court security fee was not to punish but to ensure adequate funding for court 
security.  (Ibid.)  The fee is not imposed only in a criminal context.  “[T]he same 
fee is imposed in limited and unlimited civil and probate cases as well.”  (Ibid.)  
Finally, whether or not the fee provision became effective was completely 
dependent on the funding of other budget line items.  (Ibid.) 
Whether the court security fee imposes an affirmative disability or restraint 
depends on how the challenged statute affects those subject to it.  “If the disability 
or restraint is minor and indirect, its effects are unlikely to be punitive.”  (Smith v. 
Doe, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 100.)  A $20 fee is relatively small, and less onerous 
than other consequences that have been held to be nonpunitive.  
For example, in holding that Alaska’s sex offender registration act was not 
punitive, the high court stated, “The Act imposes no physical restraint, and so does 
not resemble the punishment of imprisonment, which is the paradigmatic 
affirmative disability or restraint.  [Citation.]  The Act’s obligations are less harsh 
than the sanctions of occupational debarment, which we have held to be 
nonpunitive.  [Citations.]”  (Smith v. Doe, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 100.)  We have 
likewise held California’s sex offender registration requirement and the compelled 
submission of convicted felons to AIDS testing,5 to be nonpunitive for ex post 
facto purposes.  (People v. Castellanos, supra, 21 Cal.4th 785, 799 [sex offender 
registration]; People v. McVickers (1992) 4 Cal.4th 81, 90 [submission to AIDS 
testing].)  The impact of the $20 fee is minimal in comparison to these registration 
and testing requirements.6  Other examples of far more onerous postcrime 
disabilities that have survived ex post facto challenges include allowing the 
                                              
5  
See Penal Code section 1202.1. 
6  
Defendant cites People v. Schoeb (2005) 132 Cal.App.4th 861, 865-866 
where the court held that section 1465.8 requires imposition of the $20 fee for 
each count for which a defendant is convicted.  He argues that the $20 fee is thus 
punitive because the amount collected could become substantial.  That defendant 
may choose to commit a number of crimes does not change the fact that the $20 
fee in connection with each is small.   
 
10
relaxation of procedures used to find juvenile probation violations, (John L. v. 
Superior Court (2004) 33 Cal.4th 158, 171-186), the denial of rehabilitation and 
pardon applications to sex offenders, (People v. Ansell (2001) 25 Cal.4th 868, 883-
893), and the postprison commitment of an individual as a sexually violent 
predator, (Hubbart v. Superior Court (1999) 19 Cal.4th 1138, 1170-1179.)  In 
People v. Rivera (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 705, 707-711 the court concluded a “jail 
booking fee” of $135 and “jail classification fee” of $33 were not properly 
classified as punishment.  Thus we conclude that the fee at issue here does not 
impose an affirmative disability or restraint for the purposes of our ex post facto 
analysis.   
We look next to whether the court security fee promotes the traditional 
aims of punishment:  retribution or deterrence.  (See People v. Castellanos, supra, 
21 Cal.4th at p. 804 (conc. & dis. opn. of Kennard, J.).)   The stated purpose of the 
court security fee is “[t]o ensure and maintain adequate funding for court 
security. . . .”  (§ 1465.8(a)(1).)  As originally enacted, the fee was “part of an 
extensive statutory scheme applicable to both criminal and specified civil cases 
designed to fund and coordinate court security . . . .”  (People v. Wallace, supra, 
120 Cal.App.4th at p. 878.)  It promotes court safety, not punishment and 
retribution.  (Ibid.)  In addition, the amount of the fee is not dependent on the 
seriousness of the offense.  Thus, it does not meet the objectives of punishment 
and is distinguishable from a fine.  Indeed, the same fee is imposed in unlimited 
civil and probate cases.  Finally, federal and state ex post facto protections serve to 
ensure a “fair warning” of the consequences of violating penal statutes.  (Weaver 
v. Graham (1981) 450 U.S. 24, 28; Hubbart v. Superior Court, supra, 19 Cal.4th 
at p. 1171.)  It is inconceivable that defendant would have decided not to commit 
his crime had he known in advance that this $20 fee would be imposed in addition 
to his 40-year-to-life sentence.  The fee is also rationally related to its nonpunitive 
purpose security goal.  (People v. Wallace, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 878.)   
 
11
The $20 fee is not excessive and imposes no physical restraint.  It “furthers 
the purpose of section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) which, as part of Assembly Bill 
No. 1759, [ensures] appropriate funding levels for court operations and providing 
a more rational process for planning court security.”  (People v. Wallace, supra, 
120 Cal.App.4th at p. 878.) 
 
In light of these factors and the Legislature’s express intent, imposition of 
the fine serves a nonpunitive purpose.  (Smith v. Doe, supra, 538 U.S. at p. 92.)  
Accordingly, it does not violate either federal or state prohibitions against ex post 
facto statutes.  (Accord People v. Wallace, supra, 120 Cal.App.4th at p. 878.) 
DISPOSITION 
 
We affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment.  
 
 
CORRIGAN, J. 
 
 
WE CONCUR: 
GEORGE, C. J. 
KENNARD, J. 
BAXTER, J. 
CHIN, J.
 
 
 
 
DISSENTING OPINION BY WERDEGAR, J. 
 
 
The $20 at issue in this case, which defendant was ordered to pay as a court 
security fee pursuant to Penal Code1 section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1), is by any 
measure a trivial amount for the California Supreme Court to consider.  But it is 
sometimes from such minutiae that legal problems arise.  We require our 
government to turn square corners, even when a paltry few dollars are at stake.  
So it is here.  Because the retroactive application of the security fee law violates 
defendant’s statutory right to be free of the retroactive application of the laws, 
I dissent. 
Section 3 provides both the beginning and the end of the analysis.  Since 
1872, that section has provided that “[n]o part of [the Penal Code] is retroactive, 
unless expressly so declared.”  This statutory language is clear and unequivocal 
and applies to all provisions of the Penal Code whether or not they impose a 
punitive or nonpunitive sanction.  Because section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) does 
not expressly declare that it is retroactive, our work should be at an end. 
As the majority explains, however, we must dig a little deeper.  In In re 
Estrada (1965) 63 Cal.2d 740, 746, we found the single sentence in section 3 
“simply embodies the general rule of construction, coming to us from the common 
law, that when there is nothing to indicate a contrary intent in a statute it will be 
presumed that the Legislature intended the statute to operate prospectively and not 
retroactively.  That rule of construction, however, is not a straitjacket.  Where the 
Legislature has not set forth in so many words what it intended, the rule of 
construction should not be followed blindly in complete disregard of factors that 
                                              
1  
All statutory references are to this code. 
 
 
2
may give a clue to the legislative intent.  It is to be applied only after, considering 
all pertinent factors, it is determined that it is impossible to ascertain the legislative 
intent.” 
Later, in People v. Hayes (1989) 49 Cal.3d 1260, 1274, we held that 
section 3 means that “[a] new statute is generally presumed to operate 
prospectively absent an express declaration of retroactivity or a clear and 
compelling implication that the Legislature intended otherwise.”  (Italics added; cf. 
Evangelatos v. Superior Court (1988) 44 Cal.3d 1188, 1208-1209 [“California 
continues to adhere to the time-honored principle, . . . that in the absence of an 
express retroactivity provision, a statute will not be applied retroactively unless it 
is very clear from extrinsic sources that the Legislature or the voters must have 
intended a retroactive application” (italics added)].)  
The interpretive gloss these cases place on the otherwise clear language of 
section 3 seems unnecessary and possibly incorrect, but the Legislature can rectify 
the situation should it so choose.  Assuming (as I do) that those cases correctly 
interpret section 3, I nevertheless conclude section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) 
cannot be applied retroactively to defendant because no clear and convincing 
extrinsic evidence demonstrates the Legislature intended to apply the $20 security 
fee to those, like defendant, who committed their crimes before the law became 
effective.   
Although the majority purports to find such evidence in the facts that the 
Legislature intended the fee to close a budget shortfall, that the money raised 
would replace money removed from judicial branch coffers, and that the law was 
passed as an urgency measure, this extrinsic evidence shows merely that the 
Legislature may have intended to apply section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) 
retroactively.  I cannot, however, conclude it proves the Legislature intended a 
retroactive application by clear and convincing evidence.  There is, for example, 
 
 
3
no clear statement in the legislative history that the Legislature intended the law to 
apply retroactively or that it considered for one moment the temporal difference 
between the date of the crime and the date of the eventual conviction.  Moreover, 
that the Legislature desired to raise money quickly does not mean it desired to do 
so in the fastest way possible, contravening normal assumptions that new statutes 
apply prospectively only.  The parties identify no legislative analysis of the 
amount of money that would have been lost if the law was applied prospectively 
only, or whether the amount lost by a prospective application would be of such an 
amount that it would seriously undermine the Legislature’s intended goal of 
funding court security.  In short, while one can certainly speculate that the 
Legislature, had it considered the point, may have desired retroactive application 
of the security fee law, the evidence fails to satisfy the high standard that there 
exist clear and convincing evidence the Legislature intended a retroactive effect.   
In sum, because section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) does not expressly 
declare that it is retroactive (as required by section 3), and because no clear and 
convincing evidence demonstrates the Legislature intended that the law apply 
retroactively, section 1465.8, subdivision (a)(1) cannot be applied to defendant.  
Because this statutory analysis disposes of the case, it is unnecessary to address 
the constitutional ex post facto issue.  (See People v. Brown (2003) 31 Cal.4th  
518, 534 [a court should not entertain constitutional claims unless necessary to 
dispose of a case]; People v. Reyes (1998) 19 Cal.4th 743, 767 (conc. & dis. opn. 
of Werdegar, J.) [same].) 
Because the majority holds otherwise, I dissent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WERDEGAR, J. 
I CONCUR: 
MORENO, J.
 
 
See next page for addresses and telephone numbers for counsel who argued in Supreme Court. 
 
Name of Opinion People v. Alford 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Unpublished Opinion 
Original Appeal 
Original Proceeding 
Review Granted XXX 137 Cal.App.4th 612 
Rehearing Granted 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Opinion No. S142508 
Date Filed: December 3, 2007 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Court: Superior 
County: Alameda 
Judge: Leopoldo E. Dorado 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Appellant: 
 
John F. Schuck, under appointment by the Supreme Court, for Defendant and Appellant. 
 
 
 
 
__________________________________________________________________________________ 
 
Attorneys for Respondent: 
 
Bill Lockyer and Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Attorneys General, Robert R. Anderson and Mary Jo Graves, 
Chief Assistant Attorneys General, Gerald A. Engler, Assistant Attorney General, Seth K. Schalit, Morris 
Lenk, Laurence K. Sullivan and Catherine A. Rivlin, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and 
Respondent. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Counsel who argued in Supreme Court (not intended for publication with opinion): 
 
John F. Schuck 
Law Offices of John F. Schuck 
4083 Transport Street, Suite B 
Palo Alto, CA  94303 
(650) 856-7963 
 
Catherine A. Rivlin 
Deputy Attorney General 
455 Golden Gate Avenue, Suite 11000 
San Francisco, CA  94102-7004 
(415) 703-5977