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
State | Citation | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Add to Dashboard
|
Colorado |
Strickland v. People, 197 Colo. 488, 594 P.2d 578 (1979) People v. Afentul, 773 P.2d 1081, 1085 (Colo. 1989) |
Under state constitutional or statutory law, what are the minimum requirements for a constitutionally adequate ability-to-pay determination? Include any guidance about the substantive standards to apply, the burden of proof, + See morethe sources of information that should be considered, and the timing of the determination (i.e. before imposition, before enforcement action, only if incarceration is threatened).
|
Before revocation of probation for failure to make ordered restitution payments can be effected, trial court must find that defendant had the ability to pay at the time the payments + See moreshould have been made.
|
"For purposes of requirement that, before probation may be revoked based upon a finding that probationer did not pay moneys due under condition of probation, probationer must have the present + See moreability to pay, the ability to pay is measured by three factors: that job for which probationer is qualified is available; that job would produce an income adequate to meet his obligations; and that probationer unjustifiably refuses to take it." "Evidence of the defendant's failure to pay restitution constitutes prima facie evidence that the defendant has violated the conditions of the deferred sentencing. When the prosecution presents this prima facie evidence, the burden then shifts to the defendant to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he was financially unable to make the payments at the time they should have been made" (Afentul, citing Strickland)
|
Enforcement |
Add to Dashboard
|
Alaska | Cont'l Ins. Companies v. Bayless & Roberts, Inc., 548 P.2d 398, 410 (Alaska 1976) | Other applicable caselaw | The legislature cannot impede the contempt power |
"Thus, statutory enactments which endeavor to limit the necessary contempt powers of the Alaska superior and supreme courts are not binding. Nevertheless, statutory enactments, which reasonably regulate the contempt power, + See moreas representing the opinion of a coequal branch of the government, should be given effect as a matter of comity unless they fetter the efficient operation of the courts or impair their ability to uphold their dignity and authority."
|
Enforcement |