case for a new hearing in California

2015However, as the Attorney General duly notes, the “preferred solution . . . is to remand the case for a new hearing on the matter. [Citations.]” (People v. Prescott (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1476 .) We agree. 3 III DISPOSITION The judgment is reversed as to the $200 attorney fee order and the trial court is directed to hold a noticed hearing pursuant to Penal Code section 987.8, subdivision (b).

2015(People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1068-1069 (Flores).) The court in People v. Prescott (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1473 suggested the “preferred solution when a trial court fails to make a necessary finding is to remand the case for a new hearing in the matter.” (Id. at p. 1476, citing Flores and People v. Verduzco (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1420-1421 .) 4 The Attorney General argues, notwithstanding the presumption that a defendant sentenced to state prison does not have a reasonably discernible future financial ability to reimburse the costs of his or her defense, defendant could have s

2015(People v. Viray (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1217 .) Where a court fails to hold the proper hearing or make the necessary finding of ability to pay, the preferred solution is to remand the case for a new hearing on the matter.

2014(People v. Viray (2005) 134 Cal.App.4th 1186, 1217 .) Where a court fails to hold the proper hearing or make the necessary finding of ability to pay, the preferred solution is to remand the case for a new hearing on the matter.

2020Indeed, this type of error requires reversal unless “the record shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not prejudice the defendant.” (Eastman, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 697 .) We conclude, however, that this is that rare case that does not compel reversal under that standard.

2019Indeed, this type of error requires reversal unless “the record shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not prejudice the defendant.” (Eastman, supra, 146 Cal.App.4th at p. 697 .) We conclude, however, that this is that rare case that does not compel reversal under that standard.

2020(Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 695 .) Winn contends that we should therefore conditionally reverse and remand the case for a new hearing on the Marsden motion.

2019(Smith, supra, 6 Cal.4th at p. 695 .) Winn contends that we should therefore conditionally reverse and remand the case for a new hearing on the Marsden motion.

2025This conclusion is consistent with the outcome in Reisman v. Shahverdian (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 1074 , where the appellate court concluded (1) the defendant’s stipulation was required to empower the commissioner to hear the motion in question, (2) no such stipulation was obtained, (3) the commissioner’s order denying the motion was void, and (4) the proper way to correct this error was to reverse the order and remand the case to the lower court so the motion could be “heard before a duly empowered judicial officer.” (Id. at p. 1097.) If the failure to stipulate to the commissioner had terminate

2015(People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1068-1069 ; People v. Prescott (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1476 ; People v. Verduzco (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1420-1421 .) “The court’s finding of the defendant’s present ability to pay . . . may be implied . . . . [Citation.] But any finding of ability to pay must be supported by substantial 4 evidence. [Citations.]” (People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1398 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 599 .) “‘“Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn fr

2015(People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1068-1069 ; People v. Prescott (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1476 ; People v. Verduzco (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1420-1421 .) “The court’s finding of the defendant’s present ability to pay . . . may be implied . . . . [Citation.] But any finding of ability to pay must be supported by substantial 4 evidence. [Citations.]” (People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1398 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 599 .) “‘“Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn fr

2015(People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1068-1069 ; People v. Prescott (2013) 213 Cal.App.4th 1473, 1476 ; People v. Verduzco (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 1406, 1420-1421 .) “The court’s finding of the defendant’s present ability to pay . . . may be implied . . . . [Citation.] But any finding of ability to pay must be supported by substantial 4 evidence. [Citations.]” (People v. Pacheco (2010) 187 Cal.App.4th 1392, 1398 , disapproved on other grounds in People v. McCullough (2013) 56 Cal.4th 589, 599 .) “‘“Substantial evidence includes circumstantial evidence and any reasonable inferences drawn fr