Does defendant's self-inflicted change in status as a repeat offender constitute an ex post facto violation of section 23175(a) of the Criminal Code?

We reject defendant's argument. The increase in defendant's penalty in this case cannot be attributed to any change in law, since section 23175(a) was effective at the time defendant committed the instant offense. Rather, it was defendant's own conduct that ultimately increased his punishment. A self-inflicted change in defendant's status as a repeat offender does not constitute an ex post facto violation. The decisions of courts in other jurisdictions are in accord. (See Cornwell v. U.S. (D.C.1982) 451 A.2d 628, 630; State v. Banks (1981) 105 Wis.2d 32, 313 N.W.2d 67, 76.)