Skip to content
Name: In re Gary F.
Case #: H039701
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 05/30/2014

Juvenile court is not authorized to impose attorney fees on a minor who is under 18 years of age when counsel is appointed. The juvenile court sustained a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition charging residential burglary against the 17-year-old minor. Without objection, it also assessed attorney's fees against the minor, who at the time of disposition was 18 years old. On appeal he challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and the court's award of attorney's fees. Held: Fees reversed. Although it is unclear whether the court assessed attorney's fees against the minor or his parents, the court-signed order…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Prescott
Case #: B242196
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 8
Opinion Date: 02/27/2013

The presumption of inability to pay attorney fees for a defendant committed to state prison, as contained in Penal Code section 987.8, subdivision (g)(2)(B), does not apply to a defendant committed to county jail under the Realignment Act. Appellant was convicted of vehicle theft, with prior prison term enhancements, committed to a five-year term in local custody, and ordered to pay $400 in attorney fees, without the benefit of a noticed hearing. Applying rules of statutory construction, the appellate court found that section 987.8, subdivision (g)(2)(B), with its clear language, "Unless the court finds unusual circumstances, a defendant sentenced…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Jaska
Case #: D057204
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 04/27/2011

The question of whether multiple takings from a single victim are a single offense committed pursuant to one intention, one general impulse, and one plan is a question of fact under People v. Bailey (1961) 55 Cal.2d 514, 519. The case involved grand theft by embezzlement over several years. One count involved withdrawals of large amounts of money from a petty cash fund. A second count involved unauthorized monthly lease payments for her automobile. Two other counts included many monthly payments for her personal American Express and Visa credit card bills. These were different ways of abusing the position of…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Pacheco
Case #: H034454
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 6 DCA
Opinion Date: 08/31/2010

Challenges to fines which are expressly subject to a defendant's ability to pay are not forfeited for failure to object because they present sufficiency of the evidence challenges. Following appellant's conviction for welfare fraud, the court placed him on probation and imposed fines and fees. On appeal, appellant challenged the imposition of three fines based on the court having failed to determine his ability to pay: $100 in attorney fees (Pen. Code, sec. 987.8), a $259.50 criminal justice administration or booking fee (Gov. Code, sec. 29550, subd. (c) or sec. 2955.2), and a monthly $64 probation-supervision fee…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Bradus
Case #: D047774
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 03/23/2007

Relief pursuant to Penal Code section 1203.4 is available regardless whether the applicant has paid ordered attorney fees or probation costs. Penal Code section 1203.4 provides that if a probationer has successfully fulfilled probation conditions for the entire time of probation, she may petition the court and is entitled to relief from the penalties and disabilities of the conviction and the court has no discretion to deny relief to a qualified applicant. (See subdivision (c) which states that payment of costs is not a prerequisite to relief under the statute.) A court may order payment of attorney…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Flores
Case #: S105762
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 06/12/2003
Subsequent History: None

Penal Code section 987.8 provides that following a hearing, the trial court may make a determination of a defendant’s ability to pay attorney’s fees for legal services provided, and that the court may hold one such additional hearing within six months of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings. The court interpreted the statute to not limit the authority of an appellate court to remand a case for correction of an error in failing to give a defendant the notice and hearing required by the statute, even though more than six months has passed since…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Flores
Case #: B148379
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 4
Opinion Date: 03/08/2002
Subsequent History: Rev. granted 5/15/02: S105762. Depublished.

Appellant was convicted of car theft and sentenced to three years in state prison. At his sentencing hearing, the court also ordered that he pay $5000 in attorney’s fees, pursuant to Penal Code section 987.8. On appeal, appellant argued, and respondent conceded, that the fees were imposed without notice and a hearing, and were therefore invalid under Penal Code section 987.8, subdivision (b). The disputed issue on appeal was the remedy for the error. Here, the appellate court held that People v. Turner (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 1690, which held that the remedy is to strike the…

View Full Summary