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

5 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

Delaware Del. Op. Atty. Gen. 93-I004 (Del.A.G.), 1993 WL 594345 Department of Correction's ability to assess a supervision fee on offenders and determine ability to pay Other applicable opinions
The Department, subject only to powers vested in the judicial and certain executive departments and officers of the State, shall have the duties set forth in this chapter and the
+ See more
exclusive jurisdiction over the care, charge, custody, control, management, administration and supervision of: (14) Collecting as a condition of supervision, a fee based on the Accountability Level of the offender. An offender sentenced to an Accountability Level I sanction shall be charged a $10 monthly fee; an offender sentenced to an Accountability Level II sanction shall be charged a $20 monthly fee; and an offender sentenced to an Accountability Level III sanction shall be charged a $25 monthly fee. The Director of Community Services shall develop policies and procedures with regard to determining an offender's ability to pay the monthly fee. Such policies and procedures shall be applied on a consistent basis to all offenders, and shall be subject to approval by the Commissioner of Correction. In the event the Department determines an offender is unable to pay the monthly fee due to lack of employment or other significant extenuating circumstances, such as an offender's responsibility to remit payment for victim compensation, restitution or child support, said inability shall not constitute a violation of supervision. The offender shall remain liable to pay the fee at such time as the Department determines he or she is able to do so. (Emphasis Supplied) For the reasons outlined below, we conclude that the Department is permitted to assess a supervision fee on offenders sentenced prior to the effective date of 11 Del.C. Sec. 6504(14).
Ability to pay