In any case when a court determines that a defendant is able to repay all or part of the expense of state-supplied or court-appointed counsel or any ancillary expenses incurred in representing such defendant, the court shall assess such fees or costs against such defendant and shall notify the judicial district's collection investigator.
Source: L. 81: Entire section added, p. 1051, § 1, effective September 1. L. 96: Entire section amended, p. 1016, § 3, effective May 23. L. 2021: Entire section amended, (SB 21-055), ch. 12, p. 76, § 8, effective March 21.
ANNOTATION
Priority of liens. Where notice of the attorney's lien was properly filed before the entry of judgment and before the state's assertion of a lien pursuant to this statute, the attorney's lien had priority. Matter of Estate of Benney, 771 P.2d 7 (Colo. App. 1988), rev'd on other grounds, 790 P.2d 319 (Colo. 1990).
The court should make a finding regarding defendant's ability to pay before ordering costs. People v. Villa-Villa, 983 P.2d 181 (Colo. App. 1997).
Separate reimbursement order requiring defendant to pay costs associated with services of public defender's office was not part of defendant's sentence. Whether an order directing a convicted defendant to reimburse the state for court-appointed counsel is a component of a sentence depends upon the underlying basis of the order. Because the repayment was neither stipulated as part of the plea agreement, nor ordered by the court as a component or condition of the defendant's sentence, the reimbursement order was a separate, independent judgment that did not contravene the defendant's plea agreement. People v. Scott, 176 P.3d 851 (Colo. App. 2007).
Trial court erred in not following chief justice directive in determining the amount of reimbursement. Chief justice directives are an expression of judicial branch policy and are given full force and effect in matters of court administration. Setting the amount of reimbursement based, in part, on factors other than the amount of time public defender devoted to case violated chief justice directive 04-04. People v. Scott, 176 P.3d 851 (Colo. App. 2007).