People v. Pincetl CA2/7

Filed 5/5/14 P. v. Pincetl CA2/7 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SEVEN

THE PEOPLE, B247923

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. KA096766) v.

ROBERT MAURICE PINCETL, III,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David C. Brougham, Judge. Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded with directions. Adrian K. Panton, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant. Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Steven D. Matthews and Herbert S. Tetef, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

_____________________

A jury convicted Robert Maurice Pincetl, III of conducting a business without a license. On appeal, Pincetl contends the restitution and probation revocation fines must be stricken because they were not orally imposed by the trial court, and he challenges the order requiring him to reimburse the County of Los Angeles for his court-appointed attorney fees because no evidentiary hearing was held to determine his ability to pay those fees. We reverse the judgment as to the award of attorney fees award and remand the matter to permit the trial court to hold the required evidentiary hearing. We also strike the restitution fine and probation revocation fine not orally imposed. In all other respects, we affirm. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Pincetl was arrested and charged in an information with one count of cultivating marijuana (Health & Saf. Code, § 11358) and one count of possessing marijuana for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11359) after police found him with numerous marijuana plants growing inside a building in the city of Irwindale. As to both counts, the information specially alleged Pincetl had suffered one prior serious or violent felony conviction within the meaning of the three strikes law (Pen. Code, §§ 667, subds. (b)-(i); 1170.12, subds. (a)-(d)). Pincetl pleaded not guilty and denied the special allegation. Pincetl was separately charged in a misdemeanor complaint with conducting a business without a license in violation of Irwindale Municipal Code section 5.04.20. Pincetl pleaded not guilty to the charge. After the trial court granted the People’s motion to consolidate the cases, a jury convicted Pincetl of conducting a business without a license (count 3), but acquitted him of the marijuana-related felony charges (counts 1 and 2). The trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed Pincetl on 36 months of summary probation. Among the conditions of probation, the court ordered Pincetl to pay a $500 fine and $1,262 in county attorney fees for his court-appointed defense counsel, but imposed no other fines or fees. The court made no reference to the restitution fine or probation revocation fine, or to any specific fees and penalties. The