P. v. Hernandez
Filed 4/26/06 P. v. Hernandez CA6
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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
SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LISA ANN HERNANDEZ, Defendant and Appellant. | H029033 (Santa Clara County Super.Ct.No. CC271229) |
Defendant Lisa Ann Hernandez appeals from the judgment entered following her admission of a probation violation. She asserts that the trial court erred in imposing probation supervision fees without the statutorily required hearing or any evidence of her ability to pay the fees. (Pen. Code, § 1203.1b.)[1]
BACKGROUND
On February 7, 2003, defendant was placed on formal probation for three years and imposition of sentence was suspended following her plea of no contest to a charge of unlawfully taking a vehicle. (Veh. Code, § 10851, subd. (a).) Various probation conditions were imposed, including 12 days in county jail (with credit for time served). Defendant was ordered to pay a criminal justice administration fee of $140.50 and a probation supervision fee of $42 per month.
On May 22, 2003, the Santa Clara County Probation Department filed a petition for modification of probation alleging that defendant failed to report to the probation department as ordered, and failed to provide proof of employment or schooling. It was further alleged that defendant had failed to appear for a hearing on a deferred entry of judgment in another case. Probation was summarily revoked and a bench warrant issued for defendant's arrest.
Nearly two years later, on April 28, 2005, defendant was served with the bench warrant in this case and in another case. At a probation revocation hearing on May 5, 2005, defendant admitted being in violation of her probation. The trial court reinstated probation with additional conditions that defendant serve 120 days in county jail, with credit for time served and eligibility for work furlough and â€
