771 P.2d at 387-88. Much of defendant’s cited case law, offered to prove that the court must find ability to pay, concerns the constitutionality of similar recoupment schemes. Paramount in this line of cases is Fuller v. Oregon, 417 U.S. 40 (1974), in which the United States Supreme Court examined whether Oregon’s statutory scheme authorizing recoupment from indigent defendants of the costs of their defense impermissibly infringed upon the right to counsel. The statute in Fuller was upheld because it was “tailored to impose an obligation only upon those with a foreseeable ability to meet it, and to enforce that obligation only against those who actually become able to meet it without hardship.” Id. at 54. See also State v. Morgan, 173 Vt. 533, 535, 789 A.2d 928, 931 (2001) (mem.) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 13. The cases upon which defendant relies
holding that under fuller sixth amendment requires trial court to make finding that defendant has or will have ability to pay reimbursement amount within statutory time period before imposing payment obligation holding that it is plain error for a trial court to require a defendant to pay courtappointed attorney fees in the absence of legally sufficient evidence that defendant has the ability to pay the amount imposed holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding that under the sixth amendment to the united states constitution before imposing an obligation to reimburse the state the court must make a finding that the defendant is or will be able to pay the reimbursement amount ordered holding that court not required to find ability to pay before imposing criminal fine