P. v. Edwards
Defendant Elisha Edwards pleaded no contest to possession of heroin and was placed on probation.
On appeal, he contends the trial court erred in ordering him to pay a $25 urinalysis fee without making any finding regarding his ability to pay as required by ADDIN BA xc <@st> xl 27 s ASMXFR000001 l "Penal Code section 1203.1ab" Penal Code section 1203.1ab (undesignated statutory references are to the ADDIN BA xc <@ost> xl 10 s ASMXFR000008 xpl 1 l "Penal Code" Penal Code), and there is no substantial evidence to support a finding of his ability to pay. In the interest of judicial economy, we shall strike the fee and direct that the order of probation by modified accordingly. In all other respects the judgment shall be affirmed.
background
At sentencing, defense counsel objected to the imposition of “non-mandatory fines and fees,†the “laboratory fees and penalty assessments and DNA†and the $25 urinalysis fee, because they can properly be imposed only if defendant has an ability to pay; defendant does not have such ability, counsel asserted, because he “is on SSI†(Social Security’s Supplemental Security Income). The court declined to impose several fines “based upon inability to pay,†but imposed the $25 drug testing urinalysis fee.
Comments on P. v. Edwards