 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
People v. Caro11/4/2003
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 977(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 977(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 977.
Xavier Caro (Xavier) appeals from an order denying his motion to intervene in the criminal prosecution of his ex-wife for the purpose of vacating an order that she reimburse the public defender for legal fees. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 387, 663; Pen. Code, § 987.8.) We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Xavier had been married to Socorro Caro (Socorro) for many years when she shot and killed three of their four children in the family home. Socorro was charged with capital murder. Xavier filed for divorce and brought a separate wrongful death action against Socorro. The proceedings in both of those civil cases were stayed pending Socorro's murder trial.
Socorro was originally represented by retained counsel in her criminal case. She petitioned the family court for an early disbursement of her share of the couple's community property so she could pay her legal fees. Xavier objected and the family court refused Socorro's request. Because Socorro could not gain access to any of her substantial community assets, her retained counsel withdrew from the case. The Ventura County Public Defender was appointed to represent her.
Following a jury trial, Socorro was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Respondent County of Ventura (the County) sought reimbursement of the public defender's fees under Penal Code section 987.8. Socorro did not oppose the request and waived her right to appear at the hearing. The trial court determined that Socorro had the present ability to pay and ordered her to reimburse the County for $307,250 in legal fees. The County subsequently filed liens on two pieces of real property owned by Xavier and Socorro and sought a writ of execution on the property that had been the family home.
Xavier filed a motion to intervene in the proceeding under Penal Code section 987.8 and to vacate the reimbursement order awarding legal fees to the County. As to his intervention request, Xavier argued that his motion should be granted because he had a community property interest in the assets that would be used to pay the fees and the payment of fees would interfere with his ability to satisfy any civil judgment he received in his wrongful death action against Socorro. As to the claim that the reimbursement order should be vacated, he argued that there had been no adequate showing at the prior hearing that Socorro had the ability to pay those fees.
The trial court denied Xavier's motion. It stated at the hearing that it was not convinced Xavier had standing to seek intervention, but assuming he did, there was no reason to set aside the prior order for reimbursement. The court noted that evidence of Xavier's and Socorro's community assets had been presented during the criminal trial and showed that Socorro's share of those assets was "in the seven figures." Based on this evidence, Socorro had a present ability to reimburse the County for her legal fees.
DISCUSSION
Code of Civil Procedure section 387, subdivision (b) allows a third party to intervene in a pending case as a matter of right when "any provision of law confers an unconditional right to intervene or if the person seeking intervention claims an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action and that person is so situated that the disposition of the action may as a practical mat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|