Below are the cases that meet your search criteria.

10 Results

Export results to Excel

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

+ Create New

New York People v. Knapp, 132 A.D.3d 1290, 1290, 17 N.Y.S.3d 231, 231 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015); People v. Travis, 64 A.D.3d 808, 809, 882 N.Y.S.2d 530, 532 (2009) Other applicable case law Consideration of ability to pay is not required when restitution order is nonprobationary "‘Consideration of defendant's ability to pay was not required because restitution was ordered as part of a nonprobationary sentence that included a period of incarceration as a significant component’” Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

New York People v. Aloma, 92 A.D.2d 572, 572–73, 459 N.Y.S.2d 327, 328 (1983) Defendant must raise issue of ability to pay to preserve claim on appeal
"At sentencing, defense counsel merely noted that it was appropriate for the court 'to consider the defendant's ability to pay a fine' and stated in conclusory terms his belief that
+ See more
defendant did not have a 'substantial amount of money'. At no point, either before or after the imposition of sentence, was a request made by defendant or his counsel that a hearing be held on his ability to pay a fine"
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

New York People v. Ryan, 83 A.D.3d 1128, 1130, 920 N.Y.S.2d 806, 809 (2011) Failure to inform defendant of applicable surcharges prior to defendant's guilty plea, does not deprive defendant of opportunity to voluntarily weight available option and accept a plea.
Defendant's plea was not rendered involuntary by County Court's failure to mention, prior to the plea, the mandatory surcharge, crime victim's assistance fee and Vehicle and Traffic Law fee associated
+ See more
with his conviction. The Court of Appeals has held that such administrative fees “are not components of a defendant's sentence” (People v. Hoti, 12 N.Y.3d 742, 743, 878 N.Y.S.2d 645, 906 N.E.2d 373 [2009] ). Accordingly, the court's failure to pronounce these charges prior to the plea does not deprive a person of the opportunity to voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently weigh the available options and accept a plea
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

New York Cty. of Nassau v. Canavan, 1 N.Y.3d 134, 139–40, 802 N.E.2d 616, 621–22 (2003) Grossly disproportionate fines are unconstitutional. Disproportionality is determined by looking to the seriousness of the crime, available penalties, and resources of the defendant
The Excessive Fines Clause thus “limits the government's power to extract payments, whether in cash or in kind, as ‘punishment for some offense’ ” Forfeitures—payments in kind—are “fines” if they
+ See more
constitute punishment for an offense (see United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321, 328, 118 S.Ct. 2028, 141 L.Ed.2d 314 [1998] ) . . . Inasmuch as a punitive forfeiture of an instrumentality of a crime “violates the Excessive Fines Clause if it is grossly disproportional to the gravity of a defendant's offense” . . . In determining gross disproportionality, we consider such factors as the seriousness of the offense, the severity of the harm caused and of the potential harm had the defendant not been caught, the relative value of the forfeited property and the maximum punishment to which defendant could have been subject for the crimes charged, and the economic circumstances of the defendant.
Fines and fees
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Iowa State v. Van Hoff, 415 N.W.2d 647, 649 (Iowa 1987)
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 more
the 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).
A determination of reasonableness ... is more appropriately based on [a defendant's] ability to pay the current installments than his ability to ultimately pay the total amount due. A determination of reasonableness ... is more appropriately based on [a defendant's] ability to pay the current installments than his ability to ultimately pay the total amount due. Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Iowa State v. Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469, 473 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) A defendant who seeks to upset a restitution order has the burden to demonstrate either the failure of the court to exercise discretion or an abuse of that discretion. A defendant who seeks to upset a restitution order, however, has the burden to demonstrate either the failure of the court to exercise discretion or an abuse of that discretion. Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Iowa Goodrich v. State, 608 N.W.2d 774, 776 (Iowa 2000) Ability to pay must be determined before imposition.
Constitutionally, a court must determine a criminal defendant's ability to pay before entering an order requiring such defendant to pay criminal restitution pursuant to Iowa Code section 910.2. Section 910.2
+ See more
authorizes a court to order the offender to make restitution of court costs and court-appointed attorney's fees “to the extent that the offender is reasonably able to do so.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Iowa State v. Kurtz, 878 N.W.2d 469, 472 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016) Are there limits to the state’s ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution?
The restitution ordered to the victim is made without regard to the defendant's ability to pay; however, other reimbursement and costs are ordered only to the extent that the defendant
+ See more
is reasonably able to pay.
The restitution ordered to the victim is made without regard to the defendant's ability to pay; however, other reimbursement and costs are ordered only to the extent that the defendant
+ See more
is reasonably able to pay. . . . Thus, before ordering payment for court-appointed attorney fees and court costs, the court must consider the defendant's ability to pay.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Michigan People v. Jackson, 483 Mich. 271, 769 N.W.2d 630 (2009)
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 more
the 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).
Defendant is not entitled to an assessment of ability to pay fee for court-appointed attorney until the imposition of the fee is enforced
Indeed, whenever a trial court attempts to enforce its imposition of a fee for a court-appointed attorney under MCL 769.1k, the defendant must be advised of this enforcement action and
+ See more
be given an opportunity to contest the enforcement on the basis of his indigency. Thus, trial courts should not entertain defendants' ability-to-pay-based challenges to the imposition of fees until enforcement of that imposition has begun. . . . The operative question for any such evaluation will be whether a defendant **643 is indigent and unable to pay at that time or whether forced payment would work a manifest hardship on the defendant at that time.
Ability to pay
BS-+-Light-Rounded-Square
Add to Dashboard

+ Create New

Michigan People v. Cunningham, 496 Mich. 145, 147, 852 N.W.2d 118, 120 (2014) Imposing costs beyond those specified in statute
The authority to impose criminal costs is statutory. Statute stating that if defendant is guilty, court may impose any cost in addition to the minimum state cost, does not provide
+ See more
courts with the independent authority to impose any costs upon defendants, and instead, statute provides courts with authority to impose only those costs that the Legislature has separately authorized by statute.
“The right of the court to impose costs in a criminal case is statutory.” . . . . Thus, courts may impose costs in criminal cases only where such costs
+ See more
are authorized by statute. In a variety of circumstances, the Legislature has chosen to provide courts with the authority to impose costs. For instance, with regard to certain offenses, courts may require criminal defendants to pay the “costs of prosecution.” . . . we conclude that MCL 769.1k (1)(b)(ii ) does not provide courts with the independent authority to impose “any cost.” Instead, we hold that MCL 769.1k(1)(b)(ii ) provides courts with the authority to impose only those costs that the Legislature has separately authorized by statute.