People v. Wilson

California Court of Appeal Mar 26, 1982 No. Crim. 40221Published

Before: Bulgrin

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the costs of probation services cannot be included as a condition of probation, but must be handled as a separate, collateral order under Penal Code section 1203.1b. Furthermore, the court ruled that the judicial authority to determine and order payment of such costs is non-delegable to the probation officer.

Issues

Whether Penal Code section 1203.1b authorizes the costs of probation services to be included as a term or condition of probation.
Whether the court may delegate the determination of the amount and manner of payment for probation costs to the probation officer.

Disposition. affirmed with directions

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“It follows that the payment of costs of probation cannot be included under the terms and conditions of probation, but must be handled separately as provided by the clear language of section 1203.1b of the Penal Code.”

Opinion

BULGRIN, J.

Statement of the Case and Facts

On August 13, 1980, information number A-359758 was filed against appellant charging two counts of robbery. Appellant was represented by

[266]

the public defender and entered a plea of guilty to Penal Code section 487, subdivision 2 (grand theft from the person), on January 21, 1981.

On April 10, 1981, sentence was pronounced. Proceedings were suspended and appellant placed on probation for three years under certain designated conditions. Pursuant to the present terms of the grant, probation will not expire until April 1, 1984.

In the minutes entered by the county clerk, under “conditions listed below” was, among others, a 270-day county jail sentence and requirement of restitution. Following the heading “Further Order as Follows /Additional Conditions of Probation:” were the handwritten words “Defendant to pay cost of probation services as directed by probation officer.”

On January 21, 1981, before the guilty plea was entered in open court, the deputy district attorney engaged in a colloquy with appellant with respect to his constitutional rights and an understanding between his attorney, the district attorney and the judge as to sentencing. In part, he was told “You could receive some sort of felony probation. As a condition of that felony probation you may do up to a year in the county jail, and

if you were to violate the terms and conditions of that probation,

even while in custody, you might be brought back into a court, have your probation revoked, and

might then be sentenced to state prison

for the term prescribed by law, which is, as I told you, 16 months two years or three years.” (Italics added.)

On April 10, 1981, when sentence was imposed, the court declined to send appellant to the California Youth Authority, and imposed county jail time. The court admonished him in no uncertain terms regarding the consequences of his former unlawful activities and new responsibilities under probation. He was told: “... you get into any further trouble the next spot is the state prison.”

People v. Wilson

AI Brief

BULGRIN, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

III

AI Brief