G en. 183] 183
CRI M I NAL LA W
C ONSTI TUTI ONAL L A W

– C ONS T I T UT I ONA L AN D S T AT UT ORY L I MI T S ON C ONFI NE MEN T OF A C R I MI N AL D EFE ND AN T FOR F AI L UR E T O P AY F I NE

A ugus t3, 2001

Sher i f f R i char d J. V

oor haar
I n y ourcapa ci t yas w ar den of the St

. M ar y ’ s C ount yD et ent i on Faci l i t y , y ou have r eques t ed ouropi ni on as t o t he cons t i t ut i onal i t yof c o n t i n u e d c o mmi t me n to f a n i n ma t e who h a s c o mpl e t e d t he s peci fi ed per i od of i ncar cer at i on butfai l ed t o pay a fin e, w hen t he s ent ence appea r s t o m ake paym ent of t he fi ne a condi t i on o f the in m a te ’s re le a s e f

ro m c u s to d y
. St at e l aw pr ovi des t hata cour tm ays ent ence a convi ct ed defe ndantw ho has fai l ed t o paya fi ne t o an add it iona l per i od of confi nement t o “w or k off” t he fi ne. H ow ever , underbot h St at e l aw and t he fe der al C ons t i t ut i on, t he cour tm u s tfi r s tas s es s t he d ef en d an t’ s ab il ityto p ay the fine b yinq u ir ing into the d ef en d an t’ s fami l yand fi nanci al s i t uat i on. A nyaddi ti o n al per i od of in c a rc e ra tio n im p o s e d f o r f a ilu re to p a yth e f

in e m u st b e w ith in s t a tu t o r y l i m i t s a n d m a y n o t , i n a n y e v e n t , e x c e e d 9 0 d a ys
. F i n a l l y, t he t ot al per i od o f inca rce r at i on i m pos ed on an i ndi gentdefe ndant m aynot exce ed t he s t atut or y m axi m um fort he under l y i ng offe ns e.
I f, i n a par t i cul ar cas e, y ou ar e conce r ned t hata s ent ence m ay n o tc o mp l y wi t h t h e s e s t a t u t o r ya n d c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p a r a me t e r s , we r ecomm end t hat y ou w r i t e t he cour t , w i t h copi es t o t he pro sec u t or and def ens e a tt o rne y , s et t i ng for t h t he bas i s fory ourconce r n and a w a it f u rt h e r d ir e c tio n f

ro m th e c o u rt

.

I
I nc ar c e r at i on i n Li e u of Paym e nt of

Fi ne U n d e r M a ry lan d law , if a d e f e n d a n t in a c rim in a l c a se f a ils to paya fi ne t hati s par tof t he def endant ’ s s ent ence , t he cour tm ay r equi r e t h e defenda ntt o s er ve a pe r i od of i ncar cer at i on i n l i eu of1 8 4 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

W illlia ms was combined for argument with a ca se challeng ing the 1 Maryland statute that then g overne d incarceration for nonpa y ment of a fi ne . T heCourt

ult imate ly

va c ate d th e Mary

land c a sein l ight of

its decision in W

illiam s, and the pa ssag e by the General Assembly

of leg islation establishing proc edural and substantive limi t s o n the imposit ion of jail time in default of pa y mentof a f

ine. See M

orris v. Sc ho on fie ld, 3 99 U. S. 5 08 (1 97 0). The re vis e d M ary land statut e is discussed in Part I .B of

this opini on. paym entof t h e fi ne. H ow ever , t he fe der al C ons t i t ut i on, as w el l as a St at e s t atut e, s etpr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve l i m i t s on t hi s opt i on. A
. C on sti t u ti on al Lim i t s
T he fe der al C ons t i t ut i on pr ohi bi t s a s t at e fr om i m pos i ng a fi ne as par t of a cr i m i nal s ent ence and t hen aut om at i cal l yconver t i ng t he f in e in to a jail te rm , w h e n th e d e f e n d a n t’s f

a ilu r e to p a yth e f

in e is a ttribu tab le so lely to in d ig e n c y . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt e sta b lish e d th is p ri n c ip le in a s e ri e s o f

d e c is io n s , b e g in n in g 3 0 y e a rs a g o
. I n W ill ia m s v . Ill in o is , 3 9 9 U. S

. 2 3 5 ( 1 9 7 0 ) , t h e S u p r e me 1 C our thel d t hatt he cont i nued i ncar cer at i on of a de fenda n tfor nonpaym entof a f

i ne vi ol at es t he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l ause of t he U ni t e d St a t e s Con s t i tu t i o n i f t h e a g g r e g a t e p e r i o d o f i n c a r c e r a t i on exce eds t he s t at u torym axi m um fort he under l y i ng offe ns e and the d e f e n d a n t’ s f

a ilu re to p a y th e f

in e is in v o lu n ta ry. In th a t c a s e , a defe ndantconvi ct ed of pe t t yt heftr ece i ved t he maxi m um s ent ence underI l l i noi s l aw fort hat o ff ens e: one y eari m pr i s onm ent , a $500 fi ne, and $5 i n cour t cos t s
. I n acc or dance w i t h an I l l i noi s s t atut e, t he j udgm ental s o di r ect ed t hat , i f t he defe ndant fai l ed t o payt he fi ne or cos t s , he w as t o “w or k off” t he unpaid am ountt hr ough cont i nued in c a rc e ra tio n a t th e ra te o f $ 5 p e r d a y . T h u s, th e se n ten c e w o u ld h av e re q u ir ed the d ef

en d an t to serve 1 0 1 d ay s b ey o n d the s tatu tory m a x im u m if

h e f a ile d to p a yth e f

in e a n d c o u rt c o s ts

. T he def endantchal l enged the s ent enc e, al l egi ng t hathe w as i ndi gentand unabl e t o s at i s fy t he m onet ar y por t i on of t he s ent ence
. T he Supr eme C our t o b ser ved t hatt he cus t om of i m pr i s oni ng a convi ct ed def

endantfornonpaym entof a fi ne w as of anc i entor i gi n. 3 9 9 U .S . a t 2 3 9

- 4 0 . H o w e v e r, th e C o u rt f o u n d th a t th e Illino is s t atut e w or ked an “ i nvi di ous di scri m i nat i on” aga i ns tan i ndi gent d e f e n d a n t, as o n ly a c o n v icte d p e rso n w ith a c c e ss to f u n d s c o u ld avoi d t he i ncr eas ed puni s hm ent

. I n eff ect , t he s t at e had e s t abl i s hed d iffe ren t m ax im u m p eriod s o f in ca rce rati o n b ase d o n a d ef en d an t’ sG en. 183] 185

a b ility to p a y
. Id

. at 242. T he C our thel d t hatt he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e r equi r es t hatthe s t atut or ycei l i ng on i m pr i s onm entforany s ubs t a n t i v e o f

f e n s e b e t h e s a me f

o ra l l d e f

e n d a n t s i r r e s p e c t i v e of e c o n o m ic s ta tu s
. Id

. at244. A ccor di ngl y , t he C our t concl uded t hat “an i ndi gentcr i m i nal defe ndant m ay notbe i m pr i s oned i n defa ul tof p a y m e n t o f

a f in e b e y o n d th e m a x im u m a u th o riz e d b yth e sta tu te r egul at i ng t he s ubs t ant i ve off ens e. ” Id

. at241.
T he hol di ng i n Wi l l i a ms w o u ld lit e ra llya p p lyo n lyin a c a se in w h ich th e a g g reg ate p eriod o f in ca rce rati o n ex ce ed s the statu tory m axi mum. Howev e r , o n e y e a rl a t e r , t h e Cou r te x t e n d e d t he pr i nci pl e announce d i n W i l l i am s, t o forbi d t he aut om at i c conve r s i on of an unpa i d fi ne t o i ncar cer at i on, r egar dl es s of w het her t he fi ne w as o rig in a llya c c o m p a n ied b y a jail te rm o r w h e th e r th e a g g re g a te ja il t e r m e x c e e d e d t h e s t a tu t o r y ma x i mum. I n T a te v . Sh o rt, 40 1 U. S. 395 ( 1971) , the C o u rtcons i der ed a c as e i n w hi ch an i ndi gent d e f e n d a n t, w h o h a d f

a iled to p a yf

in e s f o r n o n -ja ilab le tr a f

f ic offe ns es , w as i m pr i s oned undera Texas s t atute tha tpr ovi ded for i ncar cer at i on i n l i eu of a n unpai d fi ne att he r at e of $5 perday

. T he Co u r tc o n c l u d e d t h a t t he Te x a s s t a t u t e s u f f e r e d f r o m t h e s a me cons t i tut i onal defectas t he I l l i noi s s t atut e i n Wi l l i a ms
. I thel d t hat “t he C ons t i tut i on pr ohi bi t s t he S t at e fr om i m pos i ng a fi ne and then aut om at i cal l yconvert ing iti nt o a j ai l t er m s ol el ybeca us e t he defe ndanti s i ndi gentand ca nnotfor t hw i t h pay t he fi ne i n ful l

. ” 401 U

. S. at671.
Subse quent l y , i n B e a rd e n v . G e o rg ia , 461 U

. S. 660 ( 1983) , t he C our tr ei t er at ed t he hol di ngs i n Wi l l i a ms and T a te , but anal y zed the i s s ue of i ncar cer at i on i n l i eu of pay m entfr om t he per s pect i ve of the D ue Pr oces s C l aus e of the f ed eral C ons t i t ut i on. I n B e a r d e n , an i nd i gen tdefe nd ant on prob at i on had part i al l y paid a fi ne thatw as a condi t i on of hi s pr obat i on but , aft erbei ng l ai d off f r om hi s j ob, w as w i t houti ncome or as s et s t o payt he rem ainderof t he fi ne on t i m e. A G eor gi a s t at e cour tr evoked t h e d ef endant ’ s pr obat i on and se n ten c e d h im to se rv e th e re m a in d e r o f h is te rm o f p ro b a tio n in pr i s on. T he Supr eme C our thel d t hata cour tcoul d n o tr evoke a defe ndant ’ s pr obat i on for fai l ur e t o pay a fi ne, w i t houtfi r s tfi ndi ng t hat t he defenda nt w as r es pons i bl e for t hat fai l ur e or t hatal t er nat i ve form s of pu nis hm ent w ou l d be i nad equ at e t o m eet t he st at e’s i nter est i n puni s hm entand det er r ence
. T he C our ts t at ed:

[I ] n r evoca t i on pr ocee di ngs forfai l ur e t o pay a fi ne o r r est i t uti on , a se n tenci ng cou rtm ust i n q u i r e i n t o t h e r e a s o n s f o r t h e f a i l u r e t o p a y. I f t he pr obat i onerw i l l ful l yr efus ed t o payor1 8 6 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
fai l ed to m ake suf

fi ci ent bona fi de ef

forts l ega ll y t o acqui r e t he r es our ces t o pay , t he cou rt m ayr evoke pr obat i on and s ent ence t he defe ndant t o i m pr i s onm ent w i t hi n t he a u t h o r i z e d r a n g e o f

i t s s e n t e n c i n g a u t h o r i t y. If th e p ro b a tio n e r c o u ld n o t p a yd e sp ite s uffi ci ent bona fi de ef for t s t o acqui r e t he r es our ces t o do s o, t he cour tm u st c ons i der al t er nat e meas ur es of puni s hm entot hert han im p ri so n m en t. O n lyif alt ern ate m ea su res a re n o t ad e q u a te to m e e t th e S ta te’ s in ter e sts in p u n ishm en t and d eterren ce m ay the c o u rt i m pr i s on a p r obat i onerw ho has m ade s uffi ci entbona fi de ef for t s t o pay
. T o do o th e rw ise w ou l d d e p riv e th e p ro b a tio n e r o f h is condi t i onal fr eedom si m pl ybeca us e, t hr ough no faul tof hi s ow n, he ca nnotpayt he fi ne. Suc h a depr i vat i on w oul d be contr ar yt o t he fundament al fa ir n ess re qui r ed by t he F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t.
4 6 1 U .S . a t 6 7 2 -7 3

. B ase d o n the p ri n ciples o u tl ined in the S u p re m e C o u rt ’s deci s i ons , t he C o u r tof A ppeal s of M ar y l and has over t ur ned or red u ce d p ri so n sen tenc es i m p o sed o n ind igen t def en d an ts fo r fa il u re to p a y re s titu tio n o r c o u rt c o s ts

. R e dd ickv . S ta te , 327 M d. 270, 608 A

. 2d 1246 ( 1992) ( s ent enci ng j udge’ s offe rto red u ce s ent ence by fi ve y ear s i f def

endantpai d r es t i t ut i on t o v ict im’ s fami l yw as u n c o n stitu tio n a l, sin c e it su b jec ted in d ig e n t d e f

e n d a n t to im p riso n m e n t f

o r la c k o f

re so u rc e s); Sm ith v . S ta te , 306 M d. 1, 506 A .2 d 1 1 6 5 (1 9 8 6 ) (s e n ten c in g c o u rt v io late d d u e p ro c e ss w h e n it r evoked de fenda nt ’ s pr obat i on forfai l ur e t o payr es t i t ut i on w i t hout m a k in g su f

f icie n t in q u iry in to d e f

e n d a n t’s a b ili tyto p a y ); Turne rv. S ta te , 3 0 7 M d . 6 1 8 , 5 1 6 A .2 d 5 7 9 (1 9 8 6 ) (c o u rt a b u se d d isc re tio n in r evoki ng pr obat i on of i ndi gent defe ndant for fai l ur e t o p ay co u rt co sts)

. T hus , t he C ons t i tut i on pl ace s bot h pr ocedur al and s ubs t ant i ve lim itatio n s o n a c o u rt’s p o w e r to in c a rc e ra te a c rim in a l d e f e n d a n t in l i eu of pa y m entof a f

i ne. Fi r s t , t he cour tm us t inq u ir e i nt o t he re a so n w h yth e d e f

e n d a n t h a s fa iled to p a y th e f in e
. If th e f a ilu re to p a yis a ttribu tab le to in d ig e n c yth e c o u rt m u st a lso c o n sid e r a ltern a te m et hods of puni s hm ent

. I f t he cour tul ti m atel ydeci des t hatan a d d iti o n a l p e rio d o f

in c a rc e ra tio n is ne c e ss a ryto se rv e th e in ter e stsG en. 183] 187

A d e fe nd ant m ay

no t be i mpriso ne d f

or failureto p ay

c ourt c os ts 2 imposed in a criminal ca se. Article38, §4(c)

. of det er r ence and puni s hm ent , t he aggr egat e per i od of i ncar cer at i on cannotexce ed t he maxi m um s ent ence fort he under l y i ng offe ns e.
B
. S tatutory P aram eters A M ar y l and s t atut e inc orpor at es t he cons t i t ut i onal pr i nci pl es and s e t s s o me a d d i t i o n a l l i mi t s o n t h e p e r i o d o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n t hat m aybe i m pos ed i n defa ul tof paym entof a f i ne. 1. A rt i cl e 38
U n d e r A n n o ta te d C o d e o f M a ryla n d , A rt ic le 3 8 , § 1 , a d e f e n d a n t w h o f

a ils to p a ya c rim in a l f

in e “ m a yb e c o m m itt e d to jail i n acc or dance w i th §4 of t hi s ar t i cl e unt i l t hence di s char ged bydue cour s e of l aw
. ”
S e c t i o n 4 p r o v i d e s t h a ta c o u r tm a y o r d e ra d e f e n d a n tt o p a y a fi ne i n i t s ent i r et yatt he t i m e s ent ence i s i m posed, i n s peci fi ed i ns t al l m ent s overa per i od of t im e, oras a condi t i on of pr obat i on. A rt i cl e 38 , 4(a)

. If a defen dan tfai l s t o p ayt he fine, t he court i s fi rs t t o d et erm i ne the r eason f or non pay m ent. T he st at ute pr ov i des:
I f t h e defenda ntfai l s t o payt he fi ne as di r ect ed

. . . ori f he i s unabl e t o payt he fi ne and s o r epr es ent s upon appl i cat i on t o t he cour t , t he cour t , aft er i nqui r i ng i nt o orm aki ng s uch fur t heri nves t i gat i on, i f any , w hi ch i tm ay d ee m n ec essa ryw ith reg ard to th e d ef en d an t’ s fi nanci al and fam i l y s i t uat i on and t he r eas ons for nonpaym ent of t he fi ne, i ncl udi ng w het her s uch nonpaym entw as contum aci ous orw as d u e to in d ig e n c y , [m a ye n te r a n a p p ro p ria te o rde r].
A r t i cl e 38, §4( b)

. T he s t atut e pr ovi des s ever al opt i ons , dependi ng on t he r es ul t s of t hi s i nqui r y : m odi fi cat i on of t he s ent ence t o anyfi ne t h a t t h e c o u r t c o u l d h a v e i m p o s e d i n i t i a l l y )forexampl e, paym ent i n i ns t al l m ent s oras a condi t i on of pr obat i on; r educt i on of t he fi ne to a n a m o u n t th a t th e d e f e n d a n t is a b le to p a y ; o r im p riso n m e n t u n til the f ine – o r a sp ec ifi ed p o rt ion o f it– is pa id. A rt icl e 3 8 , 4 (b). 21 8 8 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y
If th e c o u rt e lec ts to in c a rc e ra te th e d e f e n d a n t f o r n o n p a y m e n t, t ha t de c i s i on i s s ub

j e c t t o c e r t a i n l i mi t a t i on s
. Fi r s t , t he c ou rtm ust det er m i ne a s

peci f i c per i od of i ncar cer at i on t hat t akes i nt o acc ount “the d ef en d an t’ s situ ati o n an d m ea n s an d

. . . h is co n d u ct w ith reg ard to n o n p a y m e n t o f

th e f in e
.. .. ” A rticle 3 8 , § 4 (b ). S e c o n d , the sta tu te se ts s e v e ra l li m itatio n s o n th e p e rio d o f in c a rc e ra tio n : ( 1) T he per i od of i ncar cer at i on m aynot e x c e e d o n e d a y f

o r ea c h $ 1 0 o f

th e u n p a id fi ne. ( 2) T h e p eriod of i ncar cer at i on i m pos ed for nonpaym ent o f t he fi ne maynotexce ed one- t hi r d o f t he maxi m um per i od of i m pr i s onm ent pr ovi ded bys t atut e fort he offe ns e. ( 3 ) T he per i od of i ncar ce rati o n m ay not excee d 9 0 d ay s. ( 4 ) If i m pri sonm e nt i s not other w i se aut hor i zed a s par t o f a sent ence fort he p a r t i c u l a r o f

f e n s e , t h e p e r i od of i ncarcerat i on m ayno texcee d 1 5 d ay s. ( 5 ) I f t he defe ndant serv ed a p eri od of i ncar cer at i on fort h e s ame offens e for w hi ch t he fi ne w as i m pos ed, t he aggr egat e of the or i gi nal s ent ence of i ncar cer at i on and t he t er m i m pos ed for nonpaym ento f the fi ne maynotexce ed the m axi m um per i od of i m pr i s onm ent aut hor i zed f

ort he par t i cul aroffe ns e. A r t i cl e 38, §4( b) ( 1)

- ( 4)

. Ser vi ce o f a per i od of i ncar cer at i on for nonpaym entof a f

i ne r el i eves t he def

endantof anyfur t herpaym ent o b l i g a t i o n
. Ar t i c l e 3 8 , § 4 ( c ) ( S t a t e ma yc o l l e c tc r i mi n a l f i n e i n s a me m anneras ci vi l j udgm ent , unl es s “di s char ged by

. . . servi ce of im p ri s o n m e n t in d e f

a u lt o f a f in e ” ).
2. L egi s l at i ve H i s t ory of §4
T h e c u rre n t v e rsio n o f A rticle 3 8 , § 4 w a s d e sig n e d , in p a rt, t o s at i s fyt he const i tut i onal conce r ns out l i ned above

. Pr i ort o 1970, t he s t atut e cont ai ned a for m ul a for w or ki ng off a n unpai d fi ne t hr oughG en. 183] 189

Until 1968, the formula wa s one day for e ach dollar of unpaid fine

. 3 SeeChapter 143, L aws of Ma ryland 1968. The judgment in Mo rri

s was vacated by the Supreme Court in light 4 of its c ontemporane ous decision in W illiam s v . I

llino is , and in light of

the Gene ral Asse mbly ’s 1970 am en dm ent t o Article 38, §4. Seefootnote 1 above a nd acc ompanying te x t. s er vi ce of

a t er m of i m pr i s onm ent : one dayfor everyt w o dol l ar s of u n p a i d f i n e a n d c o s t s
. Th e s t a t u t e a l s o s e ts t a g g e r e d ma x i m um 3 l i m i t s on t he t er m : 30 day s for a fine of $100 orl es s ; 60 day s for fi nes bet w een $100 a nd $500; and 90 day s forfi nes exce edi ng $500. A rticle 3 8 , § 4 (1 9 6 5 R e p l. V o l., 1 9 6 9 S u p p .). H o w e v e r, th e sta tu te di d notcal l foranyi nqui r yi nt o t he def endant ’ s fi nanci al s i t uat i on and i t w as conce i vabl e, under t he s t atut or y for m ul a, t hatan i ndi gent defe ndantcoul d be i m pr i s oned i n exce s s of t he s t atut or ym axi m um fort he under l y i ng offe ns e.
I n t wo d e c i s i o n s t h a tp r e s a g e d t o s o me e x t e n tt h e l a t e rS u p r e me C o u rt d e c isio n s, th e f

e d e ra l d istric t co u rt in M a ry lan d h e ld sp e c if ic appl i cat i ons of t he s t atut e uncons t i t ut i onal

. I n Mor r is v. S c h o o n field , 3 0 1 F . S u p p . 1 5 8 (D . M d . 1 9 6 9 ), vacat ed , 399 U

. S. 508 (1 9 7 0 ), a th re e -ju d g e f

e d e ra l d istric t c o u rt o b se rv e d th a t th e sta tu te 4 had a dua l purpos e: ( 1) t o pr o v i de a s ubs t i t ut e puni s hm entfort he cr i m e; and ( 2) t o coer ce a r eca l ci t r antdefe ndantw ho w as abl e t o pay a fi ne. T he cour thel d t hatt he s t atut e coul d notcons t i t ut i onal l ybe appl i ed t o an i ndi gentdefe ndant , unl es s t he def endantw as gi ven an op po rtun i t yt o p res ent hi s fi nan ci al ci rcum st ances t o the j ud ge, so t hatt he j udge coul d t ake t hos e ci r cumst ance s i nt o acc ount , per haps byr educi ng t he fi ne or al l ow i ng i t t o be pai d i n i ns t al l m ent s
. “The comm i t m entorot herr ecor d s houl d s how t hatt he dec i s i on w as m ade del i ber at el ybyt he j udge af t erhear i ng fr om the d efe ndant , ei t her befor e oraft ers ent en ce o n the ques t i on of hi s abi l i t yt o payt he fi ne. ” I d. I n Ke lly v . Sc h o o n

field , 2 8 5 F

. S u p p
. 7 3 2 (D

. M d

. 1 9 6 8 ), t he s ame t hr ee-

j udge cour thel d uncons t i t ut i onal a r equi r ement t hat a cr i m i nal defe ndants er ve a pe r i od of i ncar cer at i on i n defa ul tof t he pay m ent of cou rtcost s.
I n r es pons e t o t he Mo rr is and K e lly deci s i ons , t he G ener al A ssem blyi n 1 97 0 revi sed §4 t o essent i al l yi t s curr ent t erm s. C h a p te r 1 4 7 , L a w s o f

M a ryla n d 1 9 7 0

. S ee A r t hur v . Sc h o o n field , 315 F. Supp. 548, 551 ( D

. M d. 1970 ) ( not i ng t hat1970 l egi s l at i on w a s “ c a re f

u llyd ra w n ” to m e e t co n s ti tu ti o n a l sta n d a rd s s e t f o rth in1 9 0 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

This require ment rese mbles the inquiry that would be under taken 5 if the State pursue d civil procee dings to c ollect the fine , as authorized by another part of thestatute. Under Article 38, §4( c), a

n unpaid fine may

be collecte d in the same manner as a judgment in a civil action. A de fenda nt who fa ils to pay

a monetar

y judgme nt can becharg ed with cons tructive civil contempt and fa ce theprospec t of imprisonment to coerc e compliancewith the judgme nt. Maryland Rules 1 5 -7 06; 15-707. Howeve r, prior to imprisoninga def endant f or civil contempt, the c ourt must allow the defe ndant an opportunity to show that “he ha s neither the e s tate n o r th e a

b il it y to p ay h is o b li g ation.” R a wlings v. Rawli ngs , 362 M d

. 5 3 5 , 5 6 7 , 7 6 6 A. 2 d

9 8 (2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t i n g J

on es v . S tate , 351 Md. 264, 276, 718 A.2d 222 (1998))

. Of c ourse, unde r W

illiams and Tate , a

pe ri od of inc arc e ratio n c ou ld 6 not be constitutionally

imposed ag ainst an indig ent def endant for a nonjailable off

ense.
I f the sente ncingcourt a ctually imposed a lawf

ul s en t en ce , the 7 (continued...) Mo rr is and Kell

y); T u rn e r v . S ta te , 307 M d. 618, 5 1 6 A

. 2 d 579 (19 8 6 ) (sum m arizing h ist o ryo f 1 9 7 0 am en d m en ts)

. 3. Sum m ary U n d er A rt ic l e 38, §4( b) , a cour tcannotext end t he per i od of i ncarc e r a t i on fo ra de fe nd a ntw ho fa i l s t o p a ya fi ne w i t ho utfi rs t i nqui r i ng i nt o t he r eas ons , i f any , w hyt he def endanthas fai l ed t o pay t he fi ne. I f t he cour t t hen el ect s t o i m pos e addi t i onal i ncar cer at i on

5 i n l i eu of pay m ent , t he per i od of i ncar cer at i on m aynotbe i ndefi ni t e. R at her , t he s t atut e s et s ver ysp ec ifi c l i m i t s on anys uch per i od of i m pr i s onm ent

. A tt he most , s uch a pe r i od cannotexce ed 90 day s ( or 15 day s i f t he off

ens e does notor di nar i l y i nvol ve t he pos s i bi l i t yof im p ri so n m en t)

. 6
T o i l l us t r at e y ourr eques tfort hi s opi ni on, y ou at t ache d a copy of a c om m i t m entr ecor d w i t h i dent i fy i ng i nfor m at i on r edac t ed. T hat comm i t m entr ecor d s t at ed t hatt he def endan t , w ho appar ent l yhad been c onvi ct ed of a dr ug offe ns e, w as t o s er ve 90 day s i ncar cer at i on and “D efe ndantt o pay a fi ne i n t he amount of $5, 000 befor e r el eas ed fr om confi nement

. ” W e ca nnotexpr es s an opi ni on w het hert he se n ten c e re c o rd e d in th is c o m m itm e n t re c o rd c o m p lies w ith A rticle 38, §4, beca us e t he documenti s open t o s ever al i nt erpr et at i ons , at lea st tw o o f

w h ich w o u ld b e law f

u l. 7G en. 183] 191

(...continued) 7 sentenc e is to be car

ried out e ven if the commitment record could be re ad to impose an unlawful one– e.g. , indefinite inca rce ration in l i eu of pay ment of a f

ine. SeeMary

land Rule 4-351. O n i t s fac e, t hi s document appea r s t o r equi r e t hatt he def endant be i ncar cer at ed for90 day s and paya fi ne duri ng t hat per i od. I tdoes noti t s el f appe art o aut hor i ze i ncar cer at i on i n l i eu of paym entof t he fi ne. O f cour s e, i f t he def endantfa il ed to p ay t he fi ne and, aft er i nqui r y , t he cour tdet er m i ned t h at t he def endants houl d s er ve addi t i onal t i m e i n cus t odyfort he def aul t , t he cou rt co ul d s ent ence th e d e f e n d a n t to a n a d d iti o n a l p e rio d , su b jec t to th e lim its in A rticle 3 8 , § 4 (b ).
It is a lso c o n c e iv a b le th a t th is c o m m itm e n t re c o rd d o c u m e n ts t he cour t ’ s deci s i on t o i m pos e i ncar cer at i on i n l i eu of paym entof t he $5, 0 0 0 f i n e a f t e r a p r o c e e d i n g u n d e r Ar t i c l e 3 8 , § 4 ( b )

. T he comm i t m entr ecor d i nvol ves a s ent ence of 90 day s – t he maxi m um per m i t t ed by§4( b) – and coul d be constr ued t o di r ectt he r el eas e of t he d efen dan tdu ri ng t hat p e rio d o n p ay m ent of t he fine – als o co n sist en t w ith § 4 (b).
I f y ou have a ques t i on, bas ed on a p arti cul arcomm i t m ent r ecor d, aboutw het hera sent ence exce eds t he par amet er s s etbyt he C o n sti tuti o n o r A rt icl e 3 8 , § 4 , y o u sh o u ld w ri te t h e se n tenc ing co u rt ou t l i ning y ou r concern, w i t h co pies t o the prose cutorand defe nse at t or ney
. Y ou s houl d t hen aw ai tfur t herdi r ect i on fr om t he cour tas to w h e n a n d u n d e r w h a t c ir c u m s ta n c e s to re le a s e th e d e f e n d a n t.

II
C oncl usi on
I n ouropi ni on, a cour tm ays ent ence a co n v ict ed def endant w ho has fai l ed t o pay a pr evi ous l y - i m pos ed fi ne t o an ad d i t i onal p e rio d o f

c o n f in e m e n t to “ w o r k o f

f ” th e f in e . H o w e v e r, in acc or dance w it h A rt ic l e 38, §4 and t he fe der al C ons t i t ut i on, t he cour tm us tfirst inqui r e i nt o t he def endant ’ s fami l yand fi nanci al s i tuat i on t o asse ss t he def endant ’ s abi l i t yt o payt he fi ne. A ny addi t i onal per i od of i ncar cer at i on m us tbe w i t hi n s t atut or yl i m i t s and can, i n no event , exce ed 90 day s
. F inally , t he t ot al per i od of i ncar cer at i on i m pos ed on an i ndi gentdefe ndant m aynotexce ed t he s t atut or ym axi m um fort he unde rl y i ng offe ns e. I f, i n a par t i cul ar1 9 2 [8 6 O p
. A tt ’y

cas e, y ou ar e conce r ned t hata s ent ence m ayexce ed t he s t atut or yand c o n stitu tio n a l p a ra m e ter s, w e re c o m m e n d th a t y o u a d v ise th e c o u rt, as w el l as t he pr os ecut orand def ens e at t or ney , of t he bas i s fory our c o n c e rn a n d a w a it fu rth e r d ire c tio n f ro m th e c o u rt.
J. Jo sep h C u rran , Jr. A t t or ney G ener al
R o b e rt N . M c D o n a ld C hi ef C ouns el O pi ni ons & Advi ce

E di tor ’s N

ote: A r t i cl e 38, §4, has been r ecodi fi ed i n C o u rt s & J udi ci al Pr ocee di ngs A r t i cl e, §7- 501 et s eq
. C hapt er 26, L aw s of M ar y l and 2004.