What is the appropriate remedy for a defendant who has been ordered to pay for his court-appointed attorney fees?

The question is what remedy is appropriate for this deprivation. Reviewing courts have taken different approaches to the issue. Some have affirmed the order if the defendant had some notice and made no showing of prejudice. (See People v. Phillips (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 62, 74, 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 321 [the probation officer's reference to attorney fees constituted notice sufficient, under the circumstances, "to apprise defendant that the matter would be taken up"]; People v. Smith (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 630, 637, 638-639, 96 Cal. Rptr.2d 856 [defendant not prejudiced where he raised no issue concerning ability to pay and was "not in the dark" about the possibility he would be required to pay].) That approach does not work in this case. Appellant's only notice that he might be ordered to pay for his court-appointed attorney occurred when he was advised "of financial responsibility"