P. v. Young
Filed 2/15/07 P. v. Young CA5
NOT TO BEPUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court,rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinionsnot certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or orderedpublished for purposes of rule 977.
IN THE COURT OFAPPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FIFTH APPELLATEDISTRICT
| THE PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
DEBRA LEE YOUNG,
Defendant and Appellant.
|
F050238
(Super. Ct. No. BF113326A)
OPINION |
THE COURT*
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Kern County. John I.Kelly, Judge.
Catherine Campbell, under appointment by theCourt of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Bill Lockyer, Attorney General, Mary Jo Graves, ChiefAssistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, J.Robert Jibson and Jesse Witt, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff andRespondent.
-ooOoo-
A jury convictedappellant Debra Young of possessionof methamphetamine (Health & Saf. Code, § 11377, subd. (a)) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health& Saf. Code, § 11364). The court suspended imposition of sentence andplaced appellant on three years' probation, with various terms and conditions,including that she pay $40 per month in probation supervision costs.[1]
On appeal, appellant's sole contention is thatthe court erred in imposing the probation-costs condition. Specifically, sheargues that (1) the court made various procedural errors, including failing toconduct a hearing on the issue of appellant's ability to pay probationsupervision costs; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding thatappellant had the ability to pay those costs; and (3) although a defendant whois granted probation may be ordered to pay the costs of probation supervisionif he or she is financially able to do so, payment of such costs cannot be madea condition of probation. We will modify the judgment to provide that theprobation-costs condition is deleted from the conditions of probation andaffirm the order that appellant pay such costs.
DISCUSSION
Statutory Background
Penal Code section 1203.1b[2] authorizesrecoupment of the reasonable costs of certain probation-related services,including those of â€
| Description | A jury convicted appellant of possession of methamphetamine (Health and Saf. Code, S 11377, subd. (a)) and possession of drug paraphernalia (Health and Saf. Code, S 11364). The court suspended imposition of sentence and placed appellant on three years' probation, with various terms and conditions,including that she pay $40 per month in probation supervision costs. On appeal, appellant's sole contention is that the court erred in imposing the probation costs condition. Specifically, she argues that (1) the court made various procedural errors, including failing to conduct a hearing on the issue of appellant's ability to pay probation supervision costs; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support a finding that appellant had the ability to pay those costs; and (3) although a defendant who is granted probation may be ordered to pay the costs of probation supervisionif he or she is financially able to do so, payment of such costs cannot be made a condition of probation. Court modify the judgment to provide that the probation costs condition is deleted from the conditions of probation and affirm the order that appellant pay such costs. |
| Rating |
