Opinion ID: 2625233
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Reimbursement of Public Defender Fees

Text: [¶13] Mr. Glover also contends the district court committed error when it ordered him to reimburse the State for his public defender's fees in the amount of $12,500. Mr. Glover did not object to the order in district court. Therefore, we apply the plain error standard which requires Mr. Glover to show that the incident alleged as error clearly appears in the record, the alleged error violated a clear and unequivocal rule of law, and the error denied him a substantial right resulting in material prejudice. Martin, ¶ 31, 149 P.3d at 714. [¶14] Mr. Glover's claim fails because he cannot show that the district court's order requiring him to reimburse the State for his public defender's fees violated a clear and unequivocal law. Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 7-6-106(c) (LexisNexis 2007) provides: (c) In every case in which a person has received services under W.S. 7-6-104, the presiding judge shall determine whether the person . . . is able to provide any funds toward payment of part or all of the cost associated with such services. If the person . . . is not able to provide any funds towards payment of costs, the court shall enter a specific finding on the record. If the court determines the person . . . is able to provide any amount as reimbursement, the court shall order the person . . . to reimburse the state for all or part of the costs of the services provided or shall state on the record the reasons why an order for reimbursement was not entered. [¶15] In James v. State, 998 P.2d 389, 397 (Wyo. 2000), this Court concluded that this provision directs the district court to either order reimbursement in some amount or explain why the defendant could not pay something. The court concluded the statutory language requires the inference that the legislature intended for a presiding court to presume that all defendants had either a present or future ability to pay unless proved otherwise. Id. On that basis, we held that it was reasonable for the district court to order the defendant to reimburse the State the amount of the public defender fees. [¶16] Given the legislative intent that sentencing courts are to presume a present or future ability to pay unless a defendant proves otherwise, Mr. Glover cannot show that the district court violated a clear rule of law in ordering him to reimburse the State for his public defender fees. The evidence at trial showed Mr. Glover was employed at the time of the offense, he told the court at the sentencing hearing that he wanted to get this incident behind him and return to supporting his family and no evidence was presented to suggest that he did not or would not have the ability to pay. Under these circumstances, we find no error in the district court's order. [¶17] Affirmed.