Filed 3/24/14 P. v. Dejong CA5 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
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 This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.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

FIFTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent ,

v.
MARC JOHN DEJONG , Defendant a nd Appellant

. F065572
(Super. Ct. No. CRF37916)



### OPINION

THE COURT * APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Tuolumne County. James A. Boscoe, Judge. Francisco Valentin Cortés, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for
Defendant and App ellant.
Kamala D. Harris , Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Farrell, Assistant Attorney General, Kathleen McKenna and Amanda D. Cary, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

- ooOoo

-

* Before Gomes , Acting P.J., Kane , J. and Peña , J.2

A jury found d efendant , Marc John Dejong , guilty of being a felon in possession of a firearm (Pen. Code, § 29800, subd. (a) 1 ) and obstructing a telephone line (§ 591). The trial court granted probation and ordered that defendant pay certain fines and fees.
On a ppeal, defendant contends : (1) the trial co urt erred in failing to specify the statutory basis for each fine and fee it imposed and (2) the trial court erred in ordering as conditions of probation that he pay the cost of preparation of the presentence rep ort and the cost of probation supervision

. We will strike the challenged probation conditions and remand for further proceedings.
DISCUSSION 2
I. Statutory Basis for Each Fine and Fee
Defendant contends , and the People concede , that remand is necessary f or the trial

court to state the statutory basis for each fine and fee imposed. We agree that neither the oral pronouncement , nor the order granting probation , properly lists these details

. All fines, fees, and penalties imposed must be separately listed in the abstract of judgment with the statutory basi s for such amounts set forth. ( People v. High (2 004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1192, 1200

- 1201.) Where , as here, the defendant is placed on probation and no abstract of judgment is issued, the trial court must pre pare an order specifying the statutory bases of all fees, fines, and penalties imposed. ( People v. Eddards (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 712, 718.) We will remand to allow the trial court to do so

. II. Reimbursement of Probation Costs as Condition s of Probati on Defendant’s ord er granting probation requires that he pay the $575.25 cost of preparation of the presentence report and the $30.75 monthly cost of probation supervis ion services

. Defendant argues these cost reimbursement fees were improperly
made cond itions of his p robation. Again, w e agree.

1 All statutory references are to the Penal Code unless otherwise noted.
2 The facts of th e offenses are not relevant.3

Section 1203.1b “permits the trial court to require a defendant to reimburse probation costs if the court determines , after hearing , that the defendant has the ability to pay all or a portion of such costs .” ( Pe ople v. Bennett (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1054, 1056.) But probation may not be conditioned on the payment of these costs, including
the cost of preparati on of the presentence report and the cost of probation supervision. ( People v. Hart (1998) 65 Cal.App.4t h 902, 906

- 907; People v. Bennet t, supra, at
pp. 1056

- 1057.) In this case, t he order granting probation, which defendant signed, does not contain a heading for term s and/or conditions, although many are listed. Next is a heading for “PROBATION FEES , ” whi ch are listed below that heading (and include the challenged fees)

. Immediately after the fees is the following statement: “I HEREBY
CERTIFY THAT I UNDERSTAND THE ABOVE ORDER AND PROBATION TERMS AND DO AGREE TO ABIDE BY THEM.” In our opinion, the form s uggests that everything above this certification statement is included in the probation terms. Furthermore, a t the sentencing hearing, the court stated: “The Court will grant probation, will suspend the imposition of sentence, and defendant will be admit ted to probation for
five years under the terms and conditions set forth in the form of order granting probation, which [defendant] has accepted by his signature on the order granting probation. ”
We believe that a fair construction of both the written ord er and the court’s oral

pronouncemen t of judgment support the conclusion that the fees covering the cost of preparati on of the presentence report and the cost of probation supervision were conditions of probation. Thus, we will strike the challenged condi tions.
As indicated above , section 1203.1b permits the court to require a defendant to
reimburse these costs, but b efore such reimbursement is imposed, the “court shall order the defendant to appear b efore the probation officer ... to make an inquiry into t he abil ity of the defendant to pay

.... The probation officer

... shall inform the defendant that the4

defend ant is entitled to a hearing ... in which the court shall make a determination of the
defendant ’ s ability to pay and the payment amount. The defendant m ust waive the right to a determination by the court of his or her ability to pay and the payment amount by a knowing and intelligent waiver.” ( § 1203.1b, subd. (a).) On remand, the trial court shall
address this matter in compliance with section 1203.1b. ( People v. Adams (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 705, 712

- 714 [hearings under § 1203.1b may be held at any time during probationary period].)
DISPOSITION The conditions of probation requiring that defendant pay the cost of preparation of the presentence report an d the cost of probation supervision are stricken. The matter is
remanded , and the trial court is directed to conduct further proceedings to determine the appropriateness and amount of probati on costs under section 1203.1b, and also t o prepare an order spe cifying all fines and fees with the statutory basis for each

. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.