A153623

Court of Appeal vacated the defendant’s sentence and remanded the case for consideration of whether to strike or dismiss the 5-year enhancement charge under Senate Bill 1393 and for a determination of the defendant’s ability to pay fines and fees. Here, the Attorney General conceded that remand was appropriate so that the trial court may consider whether to strike or dismiss the firearm enhancement, so, although the defendant failed to object to the imposition of fines and fees on grounds that he lacked the ability to pay them, the Attorney General took the position that, since the case must be remanded anyway, it is appropriate for the court to consider the issue of inability to pay in light of Duenas on remand.

^