In People v. Wong (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 151, division four of this court held that an indigent had no right to appointed counsel on appeal where the sentence imposed for a violation of Vehicle Code section 40508 was a fine and penalty totaling $ 65. Justice Kingsley, writing for the court, expressed the fear, which our experience causes us to share, that automatically providing counsel on appeal to indigent misdemeanants whose punishment consisted of a fine, but entailed no collateral consequences, would flood the appellate departments of our superior courts with frivolous appeals, undermining the efficiency of the appellate system and threatening the rights of nonfrivolous appellants to a speedy and reasoned determination of their appeals. In a concurring opinion Justice Files made the following observations: "The economic cost of litigation is a significant factor in our justice system and we should not be reluctant to discuss it. "The fee of a privately employed attorney to prosecute an appeal in the simplest criminal case would be several hundred dollars. The cost of personnel and overhead of the tax-supported agencies -- i.e., the trial court which prepares the record, the prosecutor and staff, the public defender and staff, and the three-judge court with its staff -- comes to thousands of dollars per appeal. "It is indisputable that the cost of employing counsel has an inhibiting effect upon a self-supporting person. Such a person, if fined $ 50, would ordinarily pay the fine even if he thought the court was wrong. "What the appellant here is asking in the name of 'equal protection' is a privilege which the self-supporting individual does not have. "Surely there is a better way to improve the quality of justice than to spend several thousands of dollars to review each $ 50 fine imposed upon an indigent person. " Under existing law a defendant's ability to pay a fine may properly be considered by the trial court in determining both the amount of the fine and the terms of payment. (See Pen. Code, 1205.) And if a defendant is unable to pay, he may not be imprisoned for his default. ( In re Antazo (1970) 3 Cal.3d 100 89 Cal.Rptr. 255, 473 P.2d 999.) The grievance of an indigent who wishes to challenge a small fine on appeal is the same as the grievance of a self-supporting person: He feels at a disadvantage without counsel, and the cost of an attorney is prohibitive." ( People v. Wong (1979) 93 Cal.App.3d 151, 155-156 155.)