People v. Hoover
Before: Gilbert
Opinion
GILBERT, P. J. When a court orders a defendant in a criminal case to pay certain probation fees, it may not consider a period of more than one year [1472]from the date of hearing to determine the defendant’s future financial position. (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b.) The court, however, is not limited to one year in ordering how long a defendant must make periodic payments.
William Dion Hoover contends the trial court erred when it ordered him to pay the full amount of his probation investigation and supervision fees imposed pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.1b (hereafter section 1203.1b). We affirm.
FACTS
Hoover pled no contest to transportation of a controlled substance, cocaine. (Health & Saf. Code, § 11352, subd. (a).) The court sentenced Hoover to three years in prison, suspended execution of the sentence and placed him on probation for three years. Probation was conditioned on, among other matters, serving 61 days in jail.
• The court held a hearing on Hoover’s ability to pay a $1,375 probation investigation fee and a $90 per month probation supervision fee. Both fees were imposed pursuant to section 1203.1b.
At the hearing Hoover’s counsel stated Hoover had not worked since December 2009, and then he was making only $9.50 per hour. In addition, Hoover would not be employed during the 61 days he spent in jail. Hoover stipulated to pay $30 per month toward his probation supervision fee, if the court would waive the $1,375 probation investigation fee.
The court reviewed the probation report and Hoover’s statement of assets. It took into account that Hoover had a car and a cell phone, lived in an expensive area, Marina Del Rey, and had no debts.
The court refused to waive the probation investigation fee. It ordered Hoover to pay $30 per month on the combined investigation and supervision fees.
DISCUSSION
Hoover contends the trial court erred in interpreting section 1203.1b to allow for the imposition of the full cost of probation, regardless of his ability to pay. Section 1203.1b provides in part: “(b) . . . The court shall order the defendant to pay the reasonable costs if it determines that the defendant has the ability to pay those costs based on the report of the probation officer, or his or her authorized representative. The following shall apply to a hearing conducted pursuant to this subdivision: [j[] . . . [j[] (2) At the hearing, if the
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)