P. v. Church
Filed 3/22/06 P. v. Church CA2/1
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION ONE
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. ORLANDO DERRICK CHURCH, Defendant and Appellant. | B183513 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. SA046805) |
APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, Katherine Mader, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
Juliana Drous, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Robert R. Anderson, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Pamela C. Hamanaka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Lawrence M. Daniels and Daniel C. Chang, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
__________________________________
Orlando Derrick Church appeals from an order requiring him to pay $200 for probation costs, contending the order cannot stand because no hearing was held to determine his ability to pay. (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b.)[1] We reverse.
BACKGROUND
In October 2002, Church pled guilty to one count of petty theft with a prior (he stole two 12-packs of beer and two bottles of vodka from a store) and admitted the prior (a 1997 misdemeanor theft conviction). The trial court (Hon. T. K. Herman) suspended imposition of sentence, placed Church on formal probation for three years, ordered Church to pay a $200 restitution fine (§ 1202.4, subd. (b)), imposed but stayed a $200 probation revocation fine (§ 1202.44),[2] and ordered Church to pay the costs of probation services (§ 1203.1b) in an amount to be determined by the probation officer, â€
