section 987.8 pay attorney fees in California

2014(See People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1063 [assuming for the purposes of review that remand is the proper remedy when a court orders a defendant to pay attorney fees under Penal Code section 987.8 without substantially complying with procedural safeguards enumerated in that section].) Disposition In case number SS120652A, the judgment (order of probation) is reversed and the matter is remanded with directions to the trial court to follow the statutory procedure in Penal Code section 1203.1b before imposing probation related costs.

2014(People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1063 [remand is the proper remedy when a court orders a defendant to pay attorney fees under section 987.8 without substantially complying with procedural safeguards enumerated in that section].) II.

2015(People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858 [defendant forfeits right to hearing to determine ability to pay probation supervision fee, and presentence investigation and report fee]; People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862, 865 [forfeiture rule also applies to hearing to determine ability to pay attorney fees under § 987.8].)5 As pertinent, section 1203.1b provides that if a defendant is the subject of a presentence investigation and report, or is granted probation, the probation officer must determine the defendant’s ability to pay the costs of any presentence investigation and report and

2014(People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 598 (booking fee); People v. McMahan (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 740, 750 (fine under section 290.3); People v. Forshay (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 686 (restitution fine).) The Sixth District in People v. Viray (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1215 (Viray) carved out an exception to the forfeiture rule with respect to payment of attorney fees under section 987.8.

2017Since defendant's ability to pay the fees appears questionable, to say the least, we must remand the matter for a determination under section 987.8 of his ability to pay attorney fees. ( People v. Verduzco , supra, 210 Cal.App.4th 1406 , 1420-1421, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ["If the attorney fees award is in error, remand is permissible for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has the ability to pay attorney fees."].) 11 *500 Disposition The matter is remanded for recalculation of the criminal laboratory analysis and drug program fees without the addition of penalty assessments and a det

2017Since defendant's ability to pay the fees appears questionable, to say the least, we must remand the matter for a determination under section 987.8 of his ability to pay attorney fees. ( People v. Verduzco , supra, 210 Cal.App.4th 1406 , 1420-1421, 149 Cal.Rptr.3d 200 ["If the attorney fees award is in error, remand is permissible for the purpose of determining whether the defendant has the ability to pay attorney fees."].) 11 *500 Disposition The matter is remanded for recalculation of the criminal laboratory analysis and drug program fees without the addition of penalty assessments and a det

2019Aguilar involved the imposition of probation-related costs under section 1203.1b and an order for reimbursement of appointed counsel fees under section 987.8. ( Aguilar , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 864 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 137 , 340 P.3d 366 .) The sentencing court largely tracked the recommendations of the probation report when it ordered reimbursement, and defense counsel did not object. ( Id. at pp. 867-868, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 137 , 340 P.3d 366 .) The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant forfeited the argument he lacked the ability to pay these costs and fees, and that forfeiture was especia

2019Aguilar involved the imposition of probation-related costs under section 1203.1b and an order for reimbursement of appointed counsel fees under section 987.8. ( Aguilar , supra , 60 Cal.4th at p. 864 , 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 137 , 340 P.3d 366 .) The sentencing court largely tracked the recommendations of the probation report when it ordered reimbursement, and defense counsel did not object. ( Id. at pp. 867-868, 182 Cal.Rptr.3d 137 , 340 P.3d 366 .) The Supreme Court concluded that the defendant forfeited the argument he lacked the ability to pay these costs and fees, and that forfeiture was especia

2022(See People v. Rodriguez (2019) 34 Cal.App.5th 641 , 648-649; citing People v. Douglas (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1397 [defendant who has the ability to pay a restitution fine may still lack the ability to pay former section 987.8 attorney’s fees].) We conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion by imposing any of the fines, and, regardless, any error was harmless. 12 DISPOSITION Any portion of the $154 criminal justice administration fee imposed pursuant to former Government Code section 29550.1 that remains unpaid as of July 1, 2021 is vacated.

2019(See 8 People v. Douglas (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 1385, 1397 [an incarcerated defendant who has the ability to pay a restitution fine from prison wages may still lack the ability to pay § 987.8 attorney’s fees]; § 2700 [able-bodied prisoners required to work]; but see 15 Cal. Code Regs. § 3040, subds. (a) [work includes unpaid labor, education, and other programs], (k) [“An inmate’s assignment to a paid position is a privilege dependent on available funding, job performance, seniority, and conduct.”].) Moreover, if defendant has secured a paying job, it is unlikely that he has accumulated enough

2014Section 987.8 “empowers the court to order a defendant who has received legal assistance at public expense to reimburse some or all of the county’s costs.” (People v. Viray (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1213 (Viray).) In Viray, supra, 134 Cal.App.4th 1186 , the defendant challenged the trial court’s order to pay attorney fees under section 987.8 on several grounds including, as here, that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of her ability to pay.

2014(People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 598 (booking fee); People v. McMahan (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 740, 750 (fine under section 290.3); People v. Forshay (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 686 (restitution fine).) The Sixth District in People v. Viray (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1215 (Viray) carved out an exception to the forfeiture rule with respect to payment of attorney fees under section 987.8.

2014(Prescott, supra, 213 Cal.App.4th at p. 1476 [“Since the trial court failed to consider [the defendant’s] ability to pay as required by section 987.8, we remand the matter for a new hearing”]; People v. Verduzco (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1421 [no substantial evidence of ability to pay section 987.8 attorney fees where trial court did not conduct a hearing]; People v. Tuggle (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1081 .) DISPOSITION The order imposing the Health and Safety Code section 11372.7 drug program fee and the Penal Code section 987.8 attorney fees is reversed.

2013(People v. Prescott (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1476 (Prescott) [statutory presumption that prisoner cannot reimburse costs of defense did not apply to defendant sentenced to jail under the Realignment Act (§ 1170, subd. (h)(5)(B))].) 24 Code section 987.8 attorney fee order is also reversed.

2015(People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858 [defendant forfeits right to hearing to determine ability to pay probation supervision fee, and presentence investigation and report fee]; People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862, 865 [forfeiture rule also applies to hearing to determine ability to pay attorney fees under § 987.8].)5 As pertinent, section 1203.1b provides that if a defendant is the subject of a presentence investigation and report, or is granted probation, the probation officer must determine the defendant’s ability to pay the costs of any presentence investigation and report and

2015(People v. Trujillo (2015) 60 Cal.4th 850, 858 [defendant forfeits right to hearing to determine ability to pay probation supervision fee, and presentence investigation and report fee]; People v. Aguilar (2015) 60 Cal.4th 862, 865 [forfeiture rule also applies to hearing to determine ability to pay attorney fees under § 987.8].)5 As pertinent, section 1203.1b provides that if a defendant is the subject of a presentence investigation and report, or is granted probation, the probation officer must determine the defendant’s ability to pay the costs of any presentence investigation and report and

2014(Pacheco, supra, 187 Cal.App.4th at p. 1397 .) In addition, our Supreme Court included attorney fees under section 987.8 in a list of statutes in which the Legislature has imposed “procedural requirements or guidelines for the ability-to-pay determination,” which weakens the “rationale for forfeiture.” ( McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th at pp. 598-599.) Thus, we will address the merits of defendant’s arguments.

2013He cites discussion in People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1399-1400 (Pacheco), disapproved on other grounds in McCullough, supra, 56 Cal.4th at p. 599 .) The discussion in Pacheco involved a different matter -- ability to pay attorney fees under section 987.8 -- for which there is a statutory definition and criteria trial courts must consider.4 ( Pacheco, supra, at pp. 1397-1398 .) Concerning section 987.8 attorney fees, the Pacheco court noted that there was no information about the defendant’s “financial position, his earning ability, or his expenses--all of which would bear on a

2025Not only was counsel’s appointment an open matter of record, but defendant’s authorities are inapposite, particularly since section 1202.4, subdivision (c), makes clear that a court must impose a restitution fine “unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so” and that a defendant’s “inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine.” ( Rodriguez, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 645-646.) As Aviles explains, “a court’s decision to deny a government request for reimbursement of attorney fees under section 987.8 1

2025Not only was counsel’s appointment an open matter of record, but defendant’s authorities are inapposite, particularly since section 1202.4, subdivision (c), makes clear that a court must impose a restitution fine “unless it finds compelling and extraordinary reasons for not doing so” and that a defendant’s “inability to pay shall not be considered a compelling and extraordinary reason not to impose a restitution fine.” ( Rodriguez, supra, 34 Cal.App.5th at pp. 645-646.) As Aviles explains, “a court’s decision to deny a government request for reimbursement of attorney fees under section 987.8 1

2014(People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 598 (booking fee); People v. McMahan (1992) 3 Cal.App.4th 740, 750 (fine under section 290.3); People v. Forshay (1995) 39 Cal.App.4th 686 (restitution fine).) The Sixth District in People v. Viray (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1215 (Viray) carved out an exception to the forfeiture rule with respect to payment of attorney fees under section 987.8.