Opinion
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County No. 10NF1143, Patrick Donahue, Judge.
Lori Shellenberger, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.
Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Gary W. Schons, Assistant Attorney General, Gil Gonzalez and Pamela Ratner Sobeck, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
MOORE, ACTING P. J.
The parties both agree that when the trial court granted probation, it made the payment of costs of probation a condition of probation. They may be right, but such is not entirely clear from the record before us. Nonetheless they are correct that a court may not condition probation upon the payment of probation fees.
“Unlike orders for restitution and restitution fines which are statutorily required to be included as conditions of probation [citation], attorney fees and costs are not. Courts that have considered the questions have held probation may not be conditioned upon the payment of either sum.” (People v. Hart (1998) 65 Cal.App.4th 902, 907.) “A defendant who is granted probation may be ordered to pay the costs of probation supervision and the preparation of probation reports, if he is financially able to do so. [Citation.] However, payment of such costs cannot be made a condition of probation. [Citation.]” (People v. Hall (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 889, 892; Pen. Code § 1203.1b.) “[A] trial court may order a defendant to pay for reasonable costs of probation; however, such costs are collateral and their payment cannot be made a condition of probation. [Citations.]” (Brown v. Superior Court (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 313, 321.)
To avoid any confusion, we order that probation fees and costs ordered by the trial court be deemed an order entered at judgment and not a condition of probation. In all other respects, the judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR: ARONSON, J., IKOLA, J.