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

8 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

Mississippi 1981 WL 39784 (Miss.A.G.); Miss. Code Ann. § 99-19-20 (2) Mississippi-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? apparently not, because judges rule on indigency on a case-by-case basis
In the event an indigent is unable to pay his fine, a justice court judge may rely upon Section 99-19-20 of the Mississippi Code, 1972 , as amended, as an
+ See more
alternative procedure in working with indigents.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Mississippi 1994 WL 497828 (Miss.A.G.) Mississippi-Attorney General opinion Which fines and/or fees may be collected by a private vendor? Any kind of fine or fee, at least for municipalities.
Section 21-17-l, Mississippi Code of 1972, as amended, provides that a “. . .municipality may contract with a private attorney or privatecollection agent or agency to collect any type of delinquent payment owed to the municipality including, but
+ See more
not limited to, past due feesand fines.”
Enforcement
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Mississippi 1996 WL 224005 (Miss.A.G.) Mississippi-Attorney General opinion What authority do county or municipal courts have to set fines or fees? The court has the authority to impose "reasonable" fees for costs incurred by the court system. In response, see the Primeaux opinion which states that Mississippi Code Annotated Section 21-23-7(11) allows a municipal court to impose reasonable costs of court which could include a service of process fee. Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Mississippi 1996 WL 369442 (Miss.A.G.) Mississippi-Attorney General opinion Other applicable opinions Court costs that are statutorily mandated must be collected from defendant by the country clerk, whether a judge decides to impose them or not.
In response, we direct your attention to Mississippi Code Annotated Section 99-19-73 (Supp. 1995), which sets forth the standard state monetary assessments for criminal violations. Specifically, subsection (7) states: If a
+ See more
fine or other penalty imposed is suspended, in whole or in part, such suspension shall not affect the state assessment under this section. No state assessment imposed under the provisions of this section may be suspended or reduced by the court. Based on the above quoted statute, the state assessment court costs are collected by the clerk of the court regardless of whether the judge imposes them or not. There are several statutorily imposed fees or costs which are to be collected regardless of whether the judge imposes them or not, e.g. Mississippi Code Annotated Section 19-7-31 allows the boards of supervisors to impose a court cost for the support of a public county law library in their respective counties. This court cost is automatically assessed regardless of whether the judge imposes it or not. Also, upon conviction for writing a bad check, Section 97-19-67(4) directs the court to impose a fee in the amount of up to 85% of the face value of a bad check in addition to any other fine, fee, cost or penalty imposed by the judge. Section 37-26-9(4) imposes a supplemental court education and training cost in all criminal cases where a fine of $10 or more is imposed by the judge. The general rule is that if the cost is statutorily imposed, there is no need for the judge to impose the cost. However, from time to time, a court cost may be incurred in which there is no statutory imposition. In such a case it is within the judge's discretion to impose such a court cost on the defendant.
Enforcement
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
term 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
probation 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 more
be 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

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 more
is 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
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Wisconsin 1995 WL 264119 (Wis.A.G.) Forfeitures What authority does the state supreme court have to impose binding state-wide rules on the imposition or collection of fees and fines? Unclear with regard to fines and fees, but uniformity regarding the recovery of forfeitures.
Section 799.01 provides in part: (b) Forfeitures. Actions to recover forfeitures except as a different procedure is prescribed in chs. 23, 66, 345 and 778, or elsewhere, and such different procedures
+ See more
shall apply equally to the state, a county or a municipality regardless of any limitation contained therein.
Revenue flow