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.
9 Results
State | Citation | Description/Statute Name | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Arkansas | Opinion No. 96-208 | Imprisonment for failure to pay - double jeopardy | Other applicable opinions |
No, it does not constitute double jeopardy to imprison a person for failure to pay a fine when the person has already had his probation revoked, and has served a + See moreterm of imprisonment, for failing to satisfy, as a condition of his probation, his obligation to pay the fine -- if the person is not indigent.
|
"such a course of action is authorized by law and does not violate U.S. Const. amend. 5 or Ark. Const. art. 2, + See more § 8, the constitutional provisionsprohibiting the placing of a person in jeopardy more than once for the same offense."
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
Arkansas | Opinion No. 2008-153 | district court discretion to refuse probation sentence |
Q2) Does a circuit or district court have discretion to refuse to sentence a defendant to probation pursuant to a plea agreement where the only stated reason for rejection of + See moreprobation is due to an indigent defendant's inability to pay court costs prior to the entry of the plea of guilty? Answer) No
|
I believe a court's refusal to consider probation as a sentencing option purely because of a defendant's indigency -- which is what your question appears to contemplate -- might well + See morebe subject to challenge as a violation of the Equal Protection guarantees set forth in the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and in article 2, §§ 2 and 3 of the Arkansas Constitution.
|
Ability to pay | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Hawaii | Hawaii A.G. Jan. 31, 1961 | Hawaii-Attorney General opinion | Other applicable opinions |
A statute authorizing the suspension of the execution of sentences or providing for probation in case of such suspension, is not unconstitutional, and does not encroach on the constitutional power + See moreof the executive to grant reprieves and pardons, or to remit fines and forfeitures. 24 C. J.S., Criminal Law, Section 1618, page 173.
|
||
Add to Dashboard
|
Idaho | Guideline 2/15/1979 | Guideline 2/15/1979 | Can a sheriff collect fees owed to him directly from criminal defendants? | No |
...we strongly question whether a defendant could be assessedthe costs of making the arrest or transporting him as a prisoner. Assessing
costs of serving subpoenas might be upheld if the defendant + See moreis not indigent.
We do not question the power of the court to collect the statutory $7 .50 under
* 3 1 -3201A ( b).
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
South Carolina | S.C.A.G. Oct. 8, 2012 (informal opinion) | Civil contempt |
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 morethe proceedings may only result in additional fines or non-incarceration penalties?
|
No - the rationale for punishment based on contempt proceedings rather than criminal proceedings is different |
The principal purpose of criminal contempt is punishment. In civil contempt, however, the contemnors "carry the keys of prison in their own pockets" as the contempt serves to secure "compliance + See morewith judicial decrees." 287 S.E.2d at 919. The Court concluded that "[t]he conditional nature of the imprisonment, based entirely upon appellant's refusal to pay respondent's expenses, justified the civil contempt proceeding without a jury trial.
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
South Carolina | S.C.A.G. July 15, 1996 (informal opinion) | Setting fees | Does allowing different municipalities to set their own indigency standards or fines/fees violate the equal protection afforded by the state’s constitution? | Not answered as to indigency - however, municipalities cannot set their own fees not in accordance with State statutes |
it is the opinion of this Office that all fee schedules used in the various counties based upon ordinances and special statutes are unconstitutional and that the only fee schedule + See moreavailable for the services enumerated is to be found under South Carolina Code Section 27-53 (1976) [replaced by Act No. 164 of 1979]
|
Fines and fees |
Add to Dashboard
|
South Carolina | Robert L. McCrudy, S.C.A.G. Dec. 14, 1999 (informal opinion) | Collection by private vendor | Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? | Collection of criminal fines and fees are the job of the magistrate |
With respect to the physical collection and handling ofpublic monies such as fines, restitution, etc. such should be done exclusively by the court and its officers rather than by the + See morecompany, in the absence of legislative authorization therefore.
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
South Carolina | 1987 S.C. Op. Att'y Gen. 255 (1987) | Bearden | Should ability to pay be considered when imposing fines or fees or only when collecting fines or fees? | Not answered - however, cannot implement a surcharge if defendant fails to pay fee |
In the circumstances where an indigent fails to comply with the schedule of payments established by the court and the court determines that the indigent has wilfully refused to pay + See moreor failed to make bona fide efforts to pay, the court is authorized to imprison the defendant for contempt. As provided in Section 17–25–350, where part of the fine has been paid, the imprisonment cannot exceed the remaining pro rata portion of the sentence. I am unaware of any basis for a court to impose a fine in addition to the sentence originally imposed.
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
South Carolina | 1978 S.C. Op. Att'y Gen. 140 (1978) | South Carolina-Attorney General opinion | What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? | By implication, they may set fees at least as far as reimbursement for public defense |
Since the Defense of Indigents Act, supra, does not prohibit the municipal court from ordering reimbursement as a condition of suspended sentences and since such orders are not generally unconstitutional + See moreor improper, it is the opinion of this Office that certain municipal courts may order as a condition of a suspended sentence, a convicted indigent defendant to reimburse the Judicial Department for the costs of his representation by a public defender, pursuant to Section 17–3–40 of the Code of Laws.
|