What is the test for overturning an order requiring a defendant to pay attorney fees as a condition of probation?
California, United States of America
The following excerpt is from People v. Parson, B222714 (Cal. App. 2012):
Furthermore, because the right to counsel is guaranteed under the California Constitution, imposing reimbursement as a condition of probation is absolutely prohibited. (People v. Flores (2003) 30 Cal.4th 1059, 1066-1067, fn. 5; People v. Johnson (1972) 27 Cal.App.3d 781, 783.)
The parties agree that the attorney fees award cannot stand and cannot be a condition of probation. The only question in dispute is the appropriate remedy. Appellant contends that under the facts presented, the order must simply be stricken. She concedes that ordinarily remand for a hearing is the proper remedy for a reversal of an attorney fees order. (See People v. Flores, supra, 30 Cal.4th at p. 1069; People v. Tuggle (2012) 203 Cal.App.4th 1071, 1081.) However, she argues that her mental condition and her failure "to make a payment towards her court fees from another case," are unusual circumstances that "establish[] that she could not reasonably have an ability to pay the attorney fees . . . ." The People, on the other hand, contend that the matter must be
Page 5
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
