Flores

People v. Flores

Bad Law
135 Cal. Rptr. 2d 63·2003 Cal. LEXIS 3520·2003 Daily Journal DAR 6358·30 Cal. 4th 1059·69 P.3d 979
Supreme Court of CaliforniaJune 12, 2003S105762California3,760 words

Opinion

Opinion

Brown, J.

J.—Subdivision (b) of section 987.8 of the Penal Code (section 987.8(b)) provides that, upon the conclusion of criminal proceedings in the trial court, the court may, after giving the defendant notice and a hearing, make a determination of his present ability to pay all or a portion of the cost of the legal assistance provided him. The subdivision further provides that the court may, in its discretion, “hold one such additional hearing within six months of the conclusion of the criminal proceedings.” (Ibid.)

Defendant contends, the People concede, and the Court of Appeal held that the reimbursement order in this case violated section 987.8(b) because it was made without the requisite notice and hearing. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal remanded the case to the trial court to give it another opportunity to provide the notice and conduct the hearing required by the statute.

The question before us is whether, as defendant contends, the remand order was erroneous because it occurred more than six months after judgment was pronounced. Defendant’s contention lacks merit. Under section 1260, appellate courts have the power to remand a cause to a trial court “for such further…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.