People v. Hall

Full title: THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TONY RAY HALL, Defendant and…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Third District, Sacramento

Date published: May 21, 2007

No. C052719 (Cal. Ct. App. May. 21, 2007)

Opinion

THE PEOPLE, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. TONY RAY HALL, Defendant and Appellant. C052719 California Court of Appeal, Third District, Sacramento, May 21, 2007

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Super. Ct. No. 06F02317

SCOTLAND , P.J.

Defendant Tony Ray Hall pled no contest to possessing methamphetamine and was sentenced to prison.

The sole issue raised in this appeal is whether the trial court properly ordered defendant to pay “attorney fees in the amount of $540 subject to a determination of [his] abilities to pay.” Defendant contends that the attorney fee order must be reversed because the fees were imposed without notice or a hearing on his ability to pay, and the record shows that he has no ability to pay.

Defendant has gotten the relief that he requested. After defendant filed this appeal, his counsel wrote to the trial court, asking it to strike the attorney fee order and amend the abstract of judgment to eliminate the order. The court did so. On March 14, 2007, it amended the abstract of judgment to state: “The Court[’]s previous order for payment of attorney’s fees in the amount of $540.00 IS HEREBY VACATED.”¹ A copy of the amended abstract of judgment was served on the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

1 On our own motion, we augment the record to include the amended abstract of judgment. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.155(a)(1)(A).)

Inasmuch as there are no issues raised by defendant’s appeal which remain to be resolved, the appeal is dismissed as moot.

We concur: NICHOLSON , J., RAYE , J.