Below are the attorney general opinions that meet your search criteria.

10 Results

Export results to Excel

State Citation Description/Statute Name Question Brief answer Language from the opinion When does the case apply?
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona State v. Robinson, 142 Ariz. 296, 297–98, 689 P.2d 555, 556–57 (Ct. App. 1984); 1987 Ariz. Op. Att'y Gen. 233 (1987) Arizona-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?
Arizona courts have only recognized that there must be an ability to pay proceeding where a party may be incarcerated. Such a determination should consider whether the probationer made good
+ See more
faith efforts to pay.
"In view of the United States Supreme Court's holding in Bearden v. Georgia, supra, we conclude that the trial court's order, revoking appellant's probation solely on the grounds that he
+ See more
failed to complete payments on the fine and restitution, without regard to his ability to pay, amounts to a deprivation of appellant's conditional freedom in violation of the fundamental fairness required by the Fourteenth Amendment.” “In considering a recommendation regarding a probationer who has not fully paid restitution and fines, it would be appropriate for a probation officer to consider, as guidelines, certain statutory requirements the courts must follow. A.R.S. § 13-901(E) authorizes a court to terminate a period of probation and discharge the probationer earlier than the term originally imposed only if it is in the interests of justice and “if the conduct of the defendant on probation warrants it.” A.R.S. § 13-810 establishes contempt sanctions for intentional refusal to make good faith efforts to pay restitution and also provides for modification of restitution orders if a defendant has been unable to pay restitution despite good faith efforts to do so. It would, therefore, also be appropriate for a probation officer to consider the extent of a probationer's ability to pay and whether the probationer made good faith payment efforts or intentionally refused to make efforts to pay in determining whether the defendant's conduct on probation warrants early termination and discharge from probation. The central purpose for all of these statutes is the protection of victims and a probation officer should always exercise his discretion with that purpose clearly in mind.”
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona 1989 Ariz. Op. Att'y Gen. 134 (1989) Arizona-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?
The Arizona Constitution allows the Arizona Supreme Court to allow local courts to make indigency standards, but it is unlikely that local municipal bodies can set such standards without legislative
+ See more
delegation.
"The Arizona Supreme Court's rulemaking power is derived from Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 5 which gives the supreme court the “[p]ower to make rules relative to all procedural matters
+ See more
in any court.” See also Barsema v. Susong, 156 Ariz. 309, 314, 751 P.2d 969, 974 (1988). The supreme court is authorized to delegate indigency determinations to the presiding judge of the superior court in each county by Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 11 which provides that the presiding judge of each county “shall exercise administrative supervision over the superior court and judges thereof in their counties, and shall have other duties as may be provided by law or by rules of the Supreme Court.”“The Arizona Supreme Court has authorized the presiding judge of each county to establish a procedure for the appointment of counsel by the Superior Court for each indigent person entitled to the appointment of counsel. Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 11 (emphasis added). We have not found any constitutional or statutory authority under which the presiding judge may delegate to a county the duty of making indigency determinations and assessments respecting the appointment of counsel in Superior Court criminal proceedings. Moreover, a county has only such powers as have been expressly or impliedly conferred by the legislature. Davis v. Hidden, 124 Ariz. 546, 548, 606 P.2d 36, 38 (App.1979); Maricopa County v. Black, 19 Ariz.App. 239, 241, 506 P.2d 279, 281 (1973). The powers of a county are exercised by and through its board of supervisors. A.R.S. § 11–201; see also Davis v. Hidden, 124 Ariz. at 548, 606 P.2d at 38; Ricca v. Bojorquez, 13 Ariz.App. 10, 13, 473 P.2d 812, 815 (1970). The powers and duties of the counties' boards of supervisors are set forth in A.R.S. § 11–251 and do not include indigency screening or determinations for the superior courts. Thus, Pima County has not been conferred such power by the Legislature.”
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona See, e.g., State v. Townsend, No. 1 CA-CR 11-0420, 2012 WL 3306960, at *3 (Ariz. Ct. App. Aug. 14, 2012) (choosing not to answer who has the burden of proof) Arizona-Attorney General opinion Who has the burden of proof in an ability to pay determination? What is the standard of proof required? Arizona Courts have not yet answered this question.
"The State contends that Townsend bore the burden of proving that she was unable to pay restitution. Even assuming that the State is correct, we conclude Townsend met that burden
+ See more
of proof here."
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona State v. Lopez, 175 Ariz. 79, 81, 853 P.2d 1126, 1128 (Ct. App. 1993) Arizona-Attorney General opinion Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? Case law has established that ability to pay need not be considered when imposing fines or fees.
"Therefore, although we will consider ability to pay as one factor toward a claim that a fine is disproportionate, the trial court does not have to explicitly consider the defendant's
+ See more
ability to pay when imposing a fine or its payment schedule"
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona Ariz. Op. Att'y Gen. No. I95-18 (Dec. 18, 1995) Arizona-Attorney General opinion What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? Municipal Courts only have authority to collect the fines and fees which state statutes provide for.
"Only city councils of charter cities which are established under Ariz. Const. art. XIII, § 24 may establish fees and surcharges to be collected by city courts, if their charters
+ See more
or ordinances authorize them to do so.5 City courts are also subject to the administrative supervision of the Supreme Court. Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 3; Winter v. Coor, 144 Ariz. 56, 59, 695 P.2d 1094, 1097 (1985).Ordinary municipal corporations such as cities and towns may not, however, establish court fees and surcharges to be collected by municipal courts within their jurisdiction. Unlike charter cities, their authority derives solely from state statutes. Maricopa County v. Maricopa County Mun. Water Conservation Dist., 171 Ariz. 325, 830 P.2d 846 (App. 1991). In establishing various municipal court fees under A.R.S. § 22-404(B), the Legislature prohibited any others “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law.” We have reviewed the statutes in Title 9 relating to the authority of non-charter cities and towns and found no statutes authorizing a city or town to set court fees and surcharges."
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Arizona 1989 Ariz. Op. Att'y Gen. 134 (1989) Arizona-Attorney General opinion What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? The Arizona Constitution grants the Supreme Court the right to impose binding state-wide rules for procedural matters related to fines and fees.
"The Arizona Supreme Court's rulemaking power is derived from Ariz. Const. art. VI, § 5 which gives the supreme court the “[p]ower to make rules relative to all procedural matters
+ See more
in any court.” "
Enforcement
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

North Carolina N.C.A.G. Mar. 21, 1996 RE: Advisory Opinion; Exceptions to Statutory Exemptions for Execution of Judgment on Criminal Restitution Orders Other applicable opinions North Carolina is not barred from structuring a program to collect costs; however, the state's initiatives, must be narrowly drawn so as to avoid chilling the indigent's right to counsel
North Carolina [is not] barred from structuring a program to collect the amount it is owed from a financially-able defendant through reasonable and fairly administered procedures. The state's initiatives in
+ See more
this area naturally must be narrowly drawn to avoid either chilling the indigent's exercise of the right to counsel, or creating discriminating terms of repayment based solely on the defendant's poverty. Beyond these threshold requirements, however, the State has wide latitude to shape its attorneys fees recoupment or restitution program along the lines it deems most appropriate for achieving lawful state objectives. Id. at 123-124. (emphasis added.)
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

North Carolina N.C.A.G. June 10, 1980 Criminal Law and Procedure; Sentences; Probation; Restitution; Bankruptcy Proceedings Person who received illegal gains as a part of criminal activity may not discharge legal financial obligations in bankruptcy
It would thus be against our statute and public policy to permit a defendant who has received illegal gains and who was ordered to make restitution as a condition of
+ See more
his sentence to vacate such conditions by a discharge in bankruptcy." People v. Mosesson, 356 N.Y.S. 2d 483, 484-85, (1974). See also: People on Inf. of Anerbach v. Topping Bros., 359 N.Y.S. 2d 985 (1974).
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Pennsylvania 10 Pa. D. & C. 390, 392 (1927) Pennsylvania-Attorney General opinion What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? Counties and cities may pass ordinances regulating traffic and may provide financial penalties
It is, therefore, the opinion of this department that cities, boroughs, incorporated towns and townships may lawfully pass ordinances providing for the regulation of traffic by means of traffic officers,
+ See more
semaphores, traffic-control lights or other signaling devices on any portion of the highways within their proper jurisdiction where traffic is heavy or continuous. In such cases, the municipal law-making bodies are to be the judges as to where such traffic policemen, semaphores or other signaling devices or traffic control lights shall be maintained. In addition, such municipalities may regulate or prohibit parking or prohibit other than one-way traffic upon certain highways within their respective jurisdiction, and they may regulate the use of highways by processions or assemblages. In such ordinances, the penalties provided may be a fine of not more than fifty ($50) dollars, to be collected by summary conviction in the manner provided by section 1216 of the act. Such fines belong to the municipality for the construction, repair and maintenance of the highways thereof.
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Pennsylvania 14 Pa. D. & C. 205, 207 (1930) Pennsylvania-Attorney General opinion Other applicable opinions
1. In Philadelphia, if fines or penalties are collected by magistrates, your department does not have either the power or the duty to demand that they be turned over to you for
+ See more
payment into the State Treasury. Such fines and penalties are clearly payable to the County of Philadelphia. However, we desire to point out, parenthetically, that magistrates may collect fines and penalties only if and when the legislature has expressly given them jurisdiction to do so. Otherwise, they can merely hold the defendants for trial in the Quarter Sessions or other criminal courts of record. 2. On the other hand, fines and penalties collected by the courts of record in Philadelphia are payable into the State Treasury through your department, if there is legislation distinctly providing that the fines shall be paid into the State Treasury. 3. Outside of Philadelphia, your department has authority to collect for payment into the State Treasury any fines or penalties, whether imposed by courts of record or courts not of record, in all cases in which the legislature has provided that such fines and penalties shall be paid into the State Treasury. However, in the absence of specific direction to this effect, the fines and penalties are payable into the respective county treasuries, if they were collected by the criminal as distinguished from the civil courts. 4. In all cases in which fines and penalties are collected by administrative agencies of the state government without any specific direction by the legislature as to the disposition to be made of the moneys collected, it is the duty of your department to collect the amounts of the fines and penalties and pay them into the State Treasury. 5. Whenever penalties are imposed by law and the collection thereof is committed to either the Department of Justice or any other administrative agency of the state government and such penalties are collected by civil suit, the amounts recovered are payable into the State Treasury, whether or not the act imposing the penalties specifically so provides. There is neither constitutional nor statutory provision to the contrary, and the rule which prevails in the absence of specific direction to the contrary is that moneys collected by a state department, with or without the aid of the civil courts, is payable into the State Treasury.
Fines and fees