Can a defendant appeal against the execution of a state prison sentence for failing to raise a constitutional issue at the sentencing hearing?

Defendant points out an exception to this rule. "A matter normally not reviewable upon direct appeal, but which is shown by the appeal record to be vulnerable to habeas corpus proceedings based upon constitutional grounds may be considered upon direct appeal. [Citations.]" (People v. Norwood (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 148, 152-153.) Failing to raise a constitutional issue, that is, an ex post facto objection to the fines when imposed at the first sentencing hearing was substandard representation by trial counsel that prejudiced defendant, rendering the fines vulnerable to collateral attack on habeas corpus.

There is another reason to address the ex post facto contention in this appeal. The Attorney General points out that the trial court failed to impose and stay a parole revocation restitution fine ( 1202.45) when it ordered execution of the state prison sentence. Even when the trial court terminates probation and imposes a previously stayed prison sentence, it is still required to impose and stay a parole revocation restitution fine. (People v. Terrell (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1246, 1255.) Failure to do so results in an unauthorized sentence correctable at any time. (Ibid.)