People v. Wright CA3

Filed 6/30/15 P. v. Wright CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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 THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (Sacramento) ----

THE PEOPLE, C075635

Plaintiff and Respondent, (Super. Ct. No. 13F04000)

v.

ANTHONY CHARLES WRIGHT,

Defendant and Appellant.

A jury found defendant Anthony Charles Wright guilty of first degree burglary. (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (a).)1 The trial court found he had a prior serious felony conviction. Defendant was sentenced to prison for 17 years consisting of 12 years (twice the upper term) for the burglary and five years for the prior serious felony. He was ordered to pay various fines and fees including $3,175 in attorney fees to the public

1 Further statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise indicated.

1

defender’s office. The court overruled his objection that, as a full-time student, he was not working and had no ability to pay. Defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the attorney fee order must be reversed because it is not supported by substantial evidence of his ability to pay. We agree and remand for a hearing on reimbursement of attorney fees. FACTS The facts of defendant’s offense are not at issue in this appeal involving a challenge to the order for payment of attorney fees. A brief summary will suffice. On June 18, 2013, the victim returned to his Sacramento apartment and found defendant in the apartment without permission. Defendant fled from the apartment by climbing over the victim, who was in a wheelchair in the doorway. The victim called police. He determined that various items of his personal property were missing. The victim spoke with a police officer, identified defendant as the perpetrator, and said he was the son of a neighbor. The next day, the victim selected defendant from a photo lineup. Defendant was arrested six days after the burglary. DISCUSSION Defendant contends, and the Attorney General concedes, the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay $3,175 in attorney fees because the order was not supported by substantial evidence of his ability to pay. We agree. Background The probation report, filed in December 2013, revealed that the 41-year-old defendant began working at age 16 as a grounds maintenance worker. He obtained his GED certificate at college or during a prior incarceration. He received advanced education in welding from a community college in the State of Washington in 1995. In the late 1990’s, he worked as a welder. He also did “ ‘odd jobs’ ” including house painting, tiling, landscaping, and fencing. More recently, defendant completed two semesters at Sacramento City College studying heating, ventilating, and air conditioning.