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
|
Arkansas |
Bohannon v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 434; Arkansas Code §5-4-205; Drain v. State, 10 Ark. App. 338, 664 S.W.2d 484 (1984); Cavin v. State, 11 Ark. App. 294, 669 S.W.2d + See more508 (1984); Trial Handbook for Arkansas Lawyers § 99:20 (2016-2017 ed.)
|
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).
|
The defendant has to make a good faith attempt to comply with a court order to pay. Otherwise, her probation may be revoked. The State has the burden of proving + See morethe failure to pay; the burden of production then shifts to the defendant to show why. The State must then prove that the nonpayment was inexcusable.
|
"(3) In determining whether to revoke probation or conditional release, the court or releasing authority shall consider: (A) The defendant's employment status; (B) The defendant's earning ability; (C) The defendant's financial + See moreresources; (D) The willfulness of the defendant's failure to pay; and (E) Any other special circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant's ability to pay."
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Arkansas |
Drain v. State, 10 Ark. App. 338, 664 S.W.2d 484 (1984), citing Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983); see also Ark. Code + See moreAnn. § 5-4-203(a)(3) and (4) (Supp. 1995).
|
Imprisonment of an indigent defendant for failure to pay a fine violates the defendants equal protection rights. |
This statute basically codifies the principles established by the cases of Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971), and Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. + See more235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), both of which stand *341 for the proposition that a sentence to imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine works an invidious discrimination against indigent defendants in violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
|
Enforcement | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Kansas | State v. McGlothin, 747 P.2d 1335, 1338 (Kan. 1988). |
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).
|
The trial judge is statutorily required to make specific findings before imposing a fine and also must state on the record that she has taken into account the defendant's financial + See moreresources and the nature of the burden that payment of the fine would impose.
|
"The statute requires and we hold that where the defendant is convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor and is sentenced to imprisonment either in the county jail or in + See morethe custody of the secretary of corrections and a fine is to be imposed, the judge must make specific findings pursuant to 214607(2) before imposing a fine. The judge must also state on the record that he or she has taken into account the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment of the fine will impose, as required by 214607(3)."
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Kansas | State v. Robinson, 132 P.3d 934, 940 (Kan. 2006). | Are there limits to the states ability to recoup fees for counsel under the state constitution? |
The sentencing court must consider the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment will impose explicitly, stating on the record how those factors have + See morebeen weighed in the court's decision.
|
"First, the sentencing court, at the time of initial assessment, must consider the financial resources of the defendant and the nature of the burden that payment will impose explicitly, stating + See moreon the record how those factors have been weighed in the court's decision. Without an adequate record on these points, meaningful appellate review of whether the court abused its discretion **941 in setting the amount and method of payment of the fees would be impossible. See State v. Moncla, 269 Kan. 61, 65, 4 P.3d 618 (2000) (noting difficulty of reviewing case in which district court failed to state findings, conclusions). Second, a sentencing court's failure to include such explicit consideration of the defendant's financial circumstances in the record does not render the sentence associated with the resulting assessment *547 illegal, as that term is used in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 223504. As we have already said, the assessment itself is not punitive; it is not a punishment or part of the sentence at all. Its connection to a sentence does not convert that sentence to one fitting the narrow definition of illegal, i.e., a sentence imposed by a court without jurisdiction; a sentence that does not conform to the statutory provision, either in the character or the term of the punishment authorized; or a sentence that is ambiguous with respect to the time and means in which it is to be served. See State v. Gayden, 281 Kan. 290, Syl. ¶ 1, 130 P.3d 108 (2006).
|
Ability to pay |
Add to Dashboard
|
Kansas | State v. Goeller, 77 P.3d 1272, 1276 (Kan. 2003). | The defendant had the burden to present evidence of his or her inability to pay restitution. |
The plain language of Kan. Stat. Ann. §2002 Supp. 21-4603d(b)(1) requires restitution unless the court finds a plan of restitution unworkable. Moreover, [i]f the court finds a plan of restitution unworkable, the + See morecourt shall state on the record in detail the reasons therefor. The design of this provision makes clear that restitution is the rule and a finding that restitution is unworkable the exception. It also leads us to conclude that it is a defendant's burden to come forward with evidence of his or her inability to pay.
|
Ability to pay | |
Add to Dashboard
|
Kansas | State v. Tafoya, 372 P.3d 1247, 1252 (Kan. 2016). |
A sentence is not rendered illegal simply because the district court judge fails to consider the financial resources of the defendant when determining either the discretionary amount of a fine + See moreor the discretionary method of payment.
|
"[W]e conclude that a sentence is not rendered **1252 illegal simply because the district court judge fails to consider (or fails to state on the record that he or she + See morehas considered) the financial resources of the defendant when determining either the discretionary amount of a fine or the discretionary method of payment. Moreover, a remand from an appellate court to a district court pursuant to these authorities to correct this error is, in substance, not a remand for resentencing. As such, the Tafoya I panel was substantively correct when it limited its mandate to vacating the fine and instructing the district court to reconsider the method of payment of the fine.
|
Ability to pay |