P. v. Pruitt
Filed 9/19/06 P. v. Pruitt CA2/7
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.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 SEVEN
| THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TRACEY PRUITT, Defendant and Appellant. | B183290 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BA275089) |
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County. Carol H. Rehm, Jr., Judge. Affirmed in part, vacated in part and remanded with directions.
Kathleen M. Redmond, 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, Jaime L. Fuster and Douglas L. Wilson, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
_________________________
A jury convicted appellant, Tracey Pruitt, of one count of possession of cocaine base for sale.[1] Attached to this count were allegations appellant had suffered prior illegal drug related convictions.[2] The jury also convicted appellant of the misdemeanor offense of unlawfully and falsely identifying herself to a police officer.[3] She appeals her convictions, claiming the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant a continuance to secure the presence of a material defense witness and the court's instruction regarding the offense of falsely identifying oneself to a police officer was erroneous, confusing and prejudicial. Finally, appellant argues the court's order requiring her to reimburse the county $6,856.45 in attorney fees must be reversed because the court imposed its order without notice, hearing or findings and thus in violation of the statutory requirements for assessing her the cost of court-appointed legal representation. We find, and the People agree, appellant's latter contention has merit. Accordingly, we will vacate the order assessing attorney fees and remand to the trial court to conduct a noticed hearing on appellant's current ability to pay such fees consistent with the statutory mandates. We affirm the judgment in all other respects.
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW
A team from the narcotics division of the Los Angeles Police Department conducted an investigation of the drug activity on Fifth and Main Streets in downtown Los Angeles. Detectives Flynn and Feldtz observed the area using high-powered binoculars from their undisclosed observation point two to four floors up and from approximately 100 feet away. Other officers in unmarked â€
