34 Cal. App. 5th 641
Cal. Ct. App. 5th2019Background
- Defendant Gildardo Rodriguez was convicted of second degree robbery and sentenced to an aggregate nine-year prison term (middle term plus consecutive priors).
- At sentencing the court ordered defendant to reimburse the county $1,185 for public defender fees under Penal Code § 987.8; defense counsel did not object.
- The probation department did not file a presentence report; its early disposition report did not mention attorney's fees. Defendant was not informed before sentencing that a reimbursement order was being considered or that he had a right to a hearing on ability to pay.
- Defendant appealed; appointed appellate counsel filed a Wende brief raising no issues. The appellate court requested supplemental briefing on whether the court erred by imposing § 987.8 fees without assessing ability to pay.
- The trial court sentenced defendant to state prison, triggering the statutory presumption that a prisoner lacks a reasonably discernible future ability to reimburse attorney fees unless unusual circumstances are found.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to object below forfeits an appellate challenge to a § 987.8 reimbursement order when defendant received no pre-sentencing notice | People: Aguilar requires objection to preserve ability-to-pay claims even if not raised below | Rodriguez: No forfeiture because he received no notice or opportunity to be heard as § 987.8 requires | Court: No forfeiture — lack of required notice means claim preserved on appeal |
| Whether remand for an ability-to-pay hearing is required when the record lacks evidence on ability to pay and defendant is incarcerated | People: If preserved, remand for a belated hearing under Flores may be appropriate | Rodriguez: Remand unnecessary because evidence strongly indicates inability to pay and remand would be futile | Court: No remand; struck the $1,185 attorney-fees order as judicially efficient given incarceration, low prison wages, restitution priority, and statutory presumption |
Key Cases Cited
- Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (right to appointed counsel)
- In re Johnson, 62 Cal.2d 325 (California constitutional right to counsel)
- People v. Aguilar, 60 Cal.4th 862 (forfeiture where defendant received notice and opportunity to contest ability to pay)
- People v. Flores, 30 Cal.4th 1059 (remand for ability-to-pay hearing may be appropriate when record suggests defendant can pay)
- People v. Verduzco, 210 Cal.App.4th 1406 (need for express finding of unusual circumstances before ordering reimbursement from state prisoners)
- People v. Vaughn, 124 Cal.App.3d 1041 (public defender clients entitled to presumption of indigence for many purposes)
- People v. Wende, 25 Cal.3d 436 (procedures for appellate counsel filing a brief raising no issues)