P. v. Tavit
Filed 7/20/12 P. v. Tavit CA2/4
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts
and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or
ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for
publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION FOUR
THE
PEOPLE,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
v.
MIKAEL
TAVIT,
Defendant and Appellant.
B238090
(Los Angeles County
Super. Ct. No. BA268702)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of
County, Henry J. Hall, Judge.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
Richard L. Fitzer, under appointment
by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General,
Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Lance E. Winters, Assistant
Attorney General, Stephanie A. Miyoshi and Nima Razfar, Deputy Attorneys
General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
introduction
Defendant and appellant Mikael Tavit
appeals from a judgment of conviction following his entry of a guilty plea on
the charge of transportation of a controlled substance. Tavit contends, and the People concede, that
the trial court erroneously assessed him $500 in attorney fees without
affording him notice or a hearing under Penal Code section 987.8, subdivision
(b) (section 987.8). We thus reverse and
remand the matter to the trial court so that it may comply with the notice and
hearing provisions of section 987.8.
procedural and factual background
Because the issue presented by this
case does not turn on the facts of the offense, we simply note that Tavit was
convicted of transporting a controlled substance (Health & Saf. Code,
§ 11379, subd. (a)), and was sentenced to county jail for two years. Tavit was represented by a public defender.
At sentencing, the trial court stated,
“I don’t believe that Mr. Tavit is indigent as that term is used in this
context, and I’m going to assess him $500 of attorney fees.” Tavit was not afforded notice or the opportunity
to be heard on the issue whether he had the present ability to pay this amount.
Tavit timely appealed.
discussion
On appeal, Tavit raises only one
issue: the propriety of the trial
court’s order that he pay $500 for attorney fees, after he was appointed a
public defender who represented him in the trial court proceedings. He contends the attorney fees order was
improper because he did not receive notice and a hearing as required by section
987.8, subdivision (b).
Section 987.8, subdivision (b) provides
in pertinent part: “In any case in which
a defendant is provided legal assistance, either through the public defender or
private counsel appointed by the court, upon conclusion of the
. . . the court may, after notice and a hearing, make a determination of the
present ability of the defendant to pay all or a portion of the cost
thereof.” The People concede the record
does not indicate Tavit received the statutorily required notice and hearing
concerning his ability to pay the attorney fees. We agree that the order must be reversed and
the matter remanded to the trial court so that it can “provide the notice and
conduct the hearing required by the statute.”
(People v.
disposition
The order directing Tavit to
pay $500 in attorney fees is reversed and the matter is remanded to the trial
court for notice and a hearing under section 987.8, subdivision (b) concerning
Tavit’s ability to pay attorney fees. In
all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
WILLHITE,
J.
We concur:
EPSTEIN, P. J. SUZUKAWA, J.
