Criminal Justice Policy Program at Harvard Law School
50-State Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder Bringing transparency to areas of significant legal complexity.
50-State Criminal Justice Debt Reform Builder Bringing transparency to areas of significant legal complexity.
Case Law
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
When does this apply
| State | Citation | Question | Brief answer | Language from the opinion | When does the case apply? | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | City of Orlando v. Cameron, 264 So. 2d 421, 423 (Fla. 1972). |
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).
|
Under Fla. Stat. §27.52(2), the defendant bears the burden of proof whether he/she is able to pay the fine. The defendant is deemed indigent and not able to pay + See morethe fine if his/her income is equal to or below 200% of the then-current federal poverty guidelines. The clerk determines the defendant's ability to pay, and the defendant may seek review of the clerk's determination by the court at a hearing. Although Fla. Stat. §27.52 provides procedures in connection with the services of a public defender, the Cameron court extended that this statute is applicable to the situation where a defendant seeks to avoid imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine because of his indigency. In this line, the hearing before the court may be held after imposition of a fine.
|
"We conclude that the Municipal Court did not commit error in sentencing the defendants to pay a fine or, in the alternative, serve a term of imprisonment. The imposition of + See moresuch a sentence does not, in itself, violate any of the constitutional rights of a defendant. If a defendant is in fact indigent, the burden is upon him to prove his indigency to the Court. Fla.Stat. s 27.52, F.S.A., describes the procedure for the determination of insolvency. Although this procedure was adopted for the purpose of determining whether a defendant is entitled to the services of a public defender, it is equally applicable to the situation where a defendant seeks to avoid imprisonment for nonpayment of a fine because of his indigency."
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | Del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999, 1002 (Fla. 2011); State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142 (Fla. 1991) | The court must determine the defendant's ability to pay at least before enforcement (unless the applicable statute specifically requires such a determination at the imposition stage). |
"[T]he underlying constitutional principle is that an indigent probationer should not be imprisoned based solely on inability to pay a monetary obligation. Based on our fidelity to this principle, we + See moreapprove the holdings of all the district courts of appeal, except the Third District, that before a trial court may properly revoke probation and incarcerate a probationer for failure to pay, it must inquire into the probationer's ability to pay and determine whether the probationer had the ability to pay but willfully refused to do so. Under Florida law, the trial court must make its finding regarding whether the probationer willfully violated probation by the greater weight of the evidence." "[A] trial court is not required to determine a convicted criminal defendant's ability to pay statutorily mandated costs prior to assessing costs unless the applicable statute specifically requires such a determination. It is only when the state seeks to enforce the collection of costs that a court must determine if the defendant has the ability to pay. Our conclusion is consistent with decisions rendered by federal courts which have addressed this issue."
|
Ability to pay | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | Del Valle v. State, 80 So. 3d 999, 1002 (Fla. 2011) |
The State must first present sufficient evidence of willfulness in order to support the trial court's finding that the probationer's violation was willful. Once the State has done so, then + See morethe probationer has to prove his/her inability to pay by preponderance of evidence.
|
"[A]n automatic revocation of probation without evidence presented as to ability to pay to support the trial court's finding of willfulness violates due process. Accordingly, the State must present sufficient + See moreevidence of willfulness, including that the probationer has, or has had, the ability to pay, in order to support the trial court's finding that the violation was willful. Once the State has done so, it is constitutional to then shift the burden to the probationer to prove inability to pay to essentially rebut the State's evidence of willfulness. However, while it is constitutional to place the burden on the probationer to prove inability to pay, the aspect of section 948.06(5) that requires the probationer to prove inability to pay by the heightened standard of clear and convincing evidence is unconstitutional."
|
Ability to pay | |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | State v. Beasley, 580 So. 2d 139, 142-43 (Fla. 1991) | Other applicable case law |
Due process requirements: (1) notice and opportunity to be heard prior to assessment of costs; and (2) ability to pay decision must be made by the court before enforcement. + See moreSuch procedural requirements apply to fines, costs, and surcharges.
|
[A] defendant must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard prior to assessment of costs and, before repayment is enforced, a court must determine the defendant's ability to + See morepay. Because the surcharge, like the costs, is statutorily mandated, whether it is a cost or a fine is unimportant from a due process viewpoint. The same two-part procedural protections from Jenkins apply.
|
Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Florida | Fla. Const. Art. I, Sec. 11 | Other applicable case law | No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud. | No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud. | Ability to pay |
|
Add to Dashboard
|
Maine | State v. Davenport, 138 A.3d 1205, 1208 (Me. 2016) |
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).
|
Defendant's ability to pay must be considered for restitution costs, but defendant has burden of proof on showing inability to pay |
In addition to establishing the offender's burden at sentencing, the Legislature supplied the burden that applies on appeal: On appeal of a restitution order, the offender has the burden of + See moredemonstrating that the incapacity was proven as a matter of law. 17A M.R.S. § 1325(4) (enacted by P.L. 1997, ch. 413, § 3).
|
Ability to pay |