Keyword search across all of the laws in the states. Subject-area tabs above allow you to narrow results. Click the advanced search for further refinement.
Every law can be saved to the Reform Builder
Below are the attorney general opinions that meet your search criteria.
|State||Citation||Description/Statute Name||Question||Brief answer||Language from the opinion||When does the case apply?|
|Wyoming||1987 Wyo. Att'y Gen. Op. No. 87-006 (May 28, 1987)||1987 Op. Atty Gen. Wyo. 19||After incarceration the board of parole has exclusive jurisdiction to administer the restitution imposed at sentencing by the court.||
After incarceration the board of parole has exclusive jurisdiction to administer the restitution imposed at sentencing by the court. Section 7-13-424, W.S. 1977, provides the board of parole with+ See more
a comprehensive scheme of parole restitution: the board shall provide for restitution on parole, may modify restitution imposed by the sentencing court, modify restitution imposed by the board or waive it entirely. Under § 7-13-413, W.S. 1977, the board is given the power to adopt rules and regulations governing the performance of duties of parole officers and the administration of the act. Thus it is reasonable that the probation and parole board could take on the responsibility of collecting and disbursing restitution if so ordered by the court.
|Alaska||Otton v. Zaborac, 525 P.2d 537, 538 (Alaska 1974)||Alaska-Attorney General opinion||
Are the same procedural protections that are required in criminal proceedings required in civil collection/contempt proceedings arising from criminal justice debt when those proceedings may result in incarceration? What if+ See more
the proceedings may only result in additional fines or non-incarceration penalties?
|Yes. For example, a defendant who is facing civil contempt must be guaranteed the right to counsel because of the "very real threat of incarceration."||
"Constitutional considerations lead us to the conclusion the defendant's interests will not be adequately protected without the assistance of appointed counsel. The Alaska Constitution provides that ‘(n)o person shall be+ See more
deprived of . . . liberty . . . without due process of law.4 The federal constitution similarly provides that no state may deprive any person of liberty without due process. Mr. Otton's interest in freedom from restraint has constitutional dimensions. State action which infringes upon that interest must be in accordance with the requirements of due process."
|Ability to pay|
Jones v. State, No. A-2629, 1989 WL 1595378, at *1–2 (Alaska Ct. App. Feb. 1, 1989) (quoting Zimmerman v. State, 706 P.2d 343, 344 (Alaska App.1985); Karr v. State, 686+ See more
P.2d 1192, 1197 (Alaska 1984)); Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.55.051
|Alaska-Attorney General opinion||Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution?||Indigency is determined by trial courts in Alaska. Trial courts are not municipal in nature, but are State courts.||
"Under AS 12.55.035, the trial court is under a mandatory duty to consider a defendant's earning capacity in connection with the imposition of any fine. The court's inquiry must be+ See more
“serious” and should include an analysis of any assets that the defendant presently owns, as well as his past and future earning capacity. A determination of a defendant's future earning capacity necessarily requires the court to make:preliminary findings of fact regarding [the defendant's] mental and physical health, [his] education, [his] job skills if any, the kinds of jobs which [he] has held in the past and is capable of performing in the future and the availability of such jobs in the communities in which [the defendant] will likely reside. Once these findings are made, the court is in a position to determine [the defendant's] likely future earnings and the extent to which those earnings will cover [his] likely future expenses for food, clothing and shelter and leave [him] a surplus out of which to pay restitution. The court must fix the amount of the fine and the terms of payment to fall within the realistic limits of the defendant's earning capacity. Failure to make the appropriate inquiry and findings requires automatic reversal and remand." " If, at a hearing under this subsection, the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant will be unable through good faith efforts to satisfy the order requiring payment of the fine or restitution, the court shall modify the order so that the defendant can pay the fine or restitution through good faith efforts. The court may reduce the fine ordered, change the payment schedule, or otherwise modify the order. The court may not reduce an order of restitution but may change the payment schedule."
|Ability to pay|
|Alaska||Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.55.051(j)||Enforcement of fines and restitution||Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor?||This has not been articulated by the court or by the Attorney General. Statutory law seems to indicate that any fine or fee can be collected by a private vendor||
(j) The Department of Law may enter into contracts on behalf of the state to carry out the collection procedures of this section. The Department of Law may adopt regulations+ See more
necessary to carry out the collection procedures of this section, including the reimbursement of attorney fees and costs in appropriate cases.
|Alaska||Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.55.051||Enforcement of fines and restitution||Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required?||Defendant has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.||
"[U]nder this subsection, the defendant proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant will be unable through good faith efforts to satisfy the order requiring payment of the+ See more
fine or restitution, the court shall modify the order so that the defendant can pay the fine or restitution through good faith efforts. The court may reduce the fine ordered, change the payment schedule, or otherwise modify the order."
|Ability to pay|
|Alaska||Alaska Stat. Ann. § 12.55.051; Dodge v. Municipality of Anchorage, 877 P.2d 270, 272 (Alaska Ct. App. 1994)||Alaska-Attorney General opinion||Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees?||Statutory law and case law suggest that the ability to pay need not be determined until after imposition.||
"A defendant who has been sentenced to pay a fine or restitution may request a hearing regarding the defendant's ability to pay the fine or restitution at any time that+ See more
the defendant is required to pay all or a portion of the fine or restitution." "The law in effect at the time of Dodge's sentencing imposed no duty upon the court to inquire into Dodge's ability to pay the fine imposed."
|Ability to pay|