State v. Morgan
Supreme Court of Vermont
1DissentMorse, J.
I would affirm. By ordering reimbursement, the trial court implicitly made a finding that defendant individually would be able to reimburse. See 13 V.S.A. § 5238(b) (court shall order a defendant to pay for all or part of the cost of representation “based upon his or her ability to pay”) (emphasis added). It did so under the statute that presumes that the income of a defendant’s cohabiting family members is available to a defendant when making a determination regarding ability to pay. See id.; see also A.O. 4, § 5(d) (for purposes of co-payment and reimbursement determinations, income of an…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Bearden v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- Usery v. Turner Elkhorn Mining Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Mobile, Jackson & Kansas City Railroad v. TurnipseedSupreme Court of the United States · 1910
- Basaldua v. StateCourt of Criminal Appeals of Texas · 1977
- Fuller v. OregonSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.