Document: 461 U.S. 660 103 S.Ct. 2064 76 L.Ed.2d 221 Danny R. BEARDEN, Petitionerv.GEORGIA. No. 81-6633. Argued Jan. 11, 1983. Decided May 24, Syllabus Petitioner pleaded guilty in a Georgia trial court to burglary and theft by receiving stolen property, but the court, pursuant First Offender's Act, did not enter judgment of guilt sentenced petitioner probation on condition that he pay $500 fine $250 restitution, with $100 payable day, next $550 balance within four months. borrowed money paid first $200, about month later was laid off from his job, and, despite repeated efforts, unable find other work. Shortly before became due, notified office payment going be late. Thereafter, State filed petition revoke petitioner's because had balance, after hearing, revoked probation, entered conviction, prison. The record hearing disclosed been employment no assets or income. Court Appeals rejected claim imprisoning him for inability make restitution violated Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. Supreme denied review. Held: A sentencing cannot properly defendant's failure absent evidence findings somehow responsible alternative forms punishment were inadequate meet State's interest deterrence, hence here erred automatically revoking turning into prison sentence without making such determination. Pp. 664-674. (a) If determines appropriate adequate penalty crime, it may thereafter imprison person solely lacked resources it. Williams v. Illinois, 399 235, 90 2018, 26 586; Tate Short, 401 395, 91 668, 28 130. probationer has willfully refused when failed sufficient bona fide efforts seek borrow pay, is justified using imprisonment as sanction enforce collection. But if made all reasonable yet do so through fault own, fundamentally unfair considering whether methods punishing are available deterrence. 664-669. (b) use sole justification poverty demonstrated so. 669-672. (c) Only measures interests deterrence who fine. To otherwise would deprive conditional freedom simply because, pay. Such deprivation contrary fundamental fairness required Pp.672-673 161 Ga.App. 640, 288 S.E.2d 662, reversed remanded. James H. Lohr, Chattanooga, Tenn., petitioner, pro hac vice, special leave Court. George M. Weaver, Atlanta, Ga., respondent. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion 1 question this case Amendment prohibits an indigent restitution. Its resolution involves delicate between acceptability, indeed wisdom, relevant factors determining individual impermissibility defendant lack financial resources. We conclude could fine, exist. therefore reverse Appeals, upholding revocation remand new 2 * In September 1980, indicted felonies property. He guilty, October 8, 1980. Pursuant Ga.Code Ann. §§ 27-2727 et seq. (current version at 42-8-60 (1982 Supp.)), guilt, deferred further proceedings three years charge concurrent one year charge. As ordered restitution.1 3 parents $200. About later, however, job. Petitioner, only ninth grade education read, tried repeatedly work indicates income during period. 4 came due February 1981, late balance.2 After evidentiary restitution,3 conviction serve remaining portion probationary period prison.4 relying earlier cases,5 Since courts have held indigents fines does violate Clause,6 we granted certiorari resolve important issue administration criminal justice. 458 ----, 102 3482, 73 1365 (1981). II 5 This long sensitive treatment our justice system. Over quarter-century ago, Black declared "there can equal where kind man gets depends amount has." Griffin 351 12, 19, 585, 591, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (plurality opinion). Griffin's principle "equal justice," which applied there strike down state practice granting appellate review persons able afford transcript, numerous contexts. See, e.g., Douglas California, 372 353, 83 814, 9 811 (1963) (indigent entitled counsel direct appeal); Roberts LaVallee, 389 40, 88 194, 19 41 (1967) free transcript preliminary trial); Mayer Chicago, 404 189, 92 410, 30 (1971) appeal under fine-only statute). Most holding 586 (1970), subject certain class convicted defendants beyond statutory maximum they too poor followed extended 130 (1971), convert imposed statute jail term immediately full. also recognized limits protecting For example, Ross Moffitt, 417 600, 94 2437, 341 (1974), constitutional right appointed discretionary appeal. United States MacCollum, 426 317, 96 2086, 48 666 (1976) opinion), protection challenge federal permits district provide certifies frivolous necessary prepare petition. 6 Due process principles converge Court's analysis these cases. See supra, U.S., 17, S.Ct., 589-90. decisions area rested framework, although Harlan particular insisted approach more accurately captures competing concerns. 29-39, 595-600 (Harlan, J., dissenting); 259-266, 2031-34, (1970) concurring). 608-609, 2442-43, generally analyze relations Process Clause, while invidiously substantial benefit another Clause. 7 presented inadequate. parties, following framework Tate, argued primarily terms protection, debate vigorously strict scrutiny rational basis standard There doubt treated differently fail probation. determine differential violates must whether, what circumstances, status considered decision substantially similar asking directly arbitrary fine.7 Whether analyzed process,8 resolved resort easy slogans pigeonhole analysis, rather requires careful inquiry "the nature affected, extent rationality connection legislative means purpose, [and] existence effectuating purpose . ." 260, 2031 8 analyzing issue, course, write clean slate, both situations. reach their holdings vital proper here. Williams, authorized statute. Because indigency equating $5 day jail, kept 101 days "work out" struck practice, "[o]nce defined outer incarceration satisfy its penological policies, then reason indigency." 241-242, 2022. faced situation, except permitted Quoting concurring Morris Schoonfield, 508, 509, 2232, 2233, 773 reasoned same defect condemned inheres jailing failing immediate any accompanied extends willing fine." 398, 671. rule then, "impos[e] conver[t] forthwith full." words, Both carefully distinguished substantive limitation situation clear "nothing today precludes willful refusal costs." 242, n. 2023, 19. Likewise "emphasize[d] suggest infirmity refuses neglects so." 400, 672. 10 distinction, based reasons non-payment, critical importance perfectly ALI, Model Penal Code § 302.2(1) (Proposed Official Draft 1962). Similarly, probationer's order reflect insufficient concern paying debt owes society crime. likewise offense. own,9 available. provides "substantial reaso[n] justifie[s] mitigate[s] violation make[s] inappropriate." Gagnon Scarpelli, 411 790, 93 1764.10 Cf. Zablocki Redhail, 434 374, 98 673, 688, 54 618 (1978) (POWELL, concurring) (distinguishing, analyses, shirk moral legal obligation child support those wholly pay). 11 State, appropriately persons—rich poor—who laws. way immunizes punishment. Thus, initially require imposition imprisonment, consider entire background defendant, including history New York, 337 247, 250, 15 (1949). said "[a]fter having taken consideration wide range underlying exercise function, nothing now hold judge imposing indigent, prescribed law." 243, 2023. 12 place reflects determination imprisonment. 264, 2033 (HARLAN, concurring); Woods Georgia, 450 261, 286-287, 1097, 1110-11, 67 220 (WHITE, dissenting). repay indicate original needs reevaluation, interests. complied conditions willingness ability conform conduct social norms. nevertheless asserts why penal goals. 13 First, argues furthers ensuring victims befall fails spur probationers try hard thereby increasing number goal fully served, Revoking someone own will suddenly forthcoming. Indeed, policy perverse effect inducing illegal acquire funds avoid revocation. 14 Second, rehabilitating remove temptation committing crimes. than naked assertion itself commit crimes future thus incapacitated. already indicated setting initial considerations part evaluating tailor remembered seeking who, assumption, job whom though unnecessary imprison. Given significant see 778, 1756, 36 656 (1973); Morrissey Brewer, 408 471, 2593, 33 484 (1972), justify incarcerating society, lumping together classifying dangerous.11 little poverty. Third, most plausibly, lawbreaker deterring others behavior clearly often served means. 244, 2023-24, reiterated 399, 671, "[t]he powerless judgments against financially extend time payments, reduce perform some form labor public service lieu observed deterrent apt derive pinch purse payment." Ibid., 265, 2034. given general flexibility tailoring even permitting specified 21, 2024, establish reduced alternate adequately serves goals diminished alternatives 16 hold, therefore, inquire legally authority. so, Amendment.12 III 17 return facts case. At parole wife testified obtain While commented availability odd jobs lawn-mowing, finding work, presently stands finding. understandable, rulings Court13 irrelevant constitutionality determined longer good risk. absence read reflecting Instead, curtly counsel's suggestion payments extended, saying fallacy argument" known comply court's prior App. 45. "I don't know orders way," Ibid. 18 focus concern, disobeyed imprisoned. lacks Tate. By propriety reducing extending orders, turned sentence. present If, upon remand, permissible Unless determinations made, remain IV 20 reversed, remanded inconsistent opinion. 21 It ordered. WHITE, Chief Justice, POWELL, REHNQUIST join, judgment. 22 deal recurring authorizes both, well fined placed takes decided inappropriate achieve objectives. true pays makes suffers entails. Had quite sure I believe either Constitution prevent imposition. 23 Poverty insulate break law When result good-faith effort impose state's objectives roughly equivalent Wood 284-287, 1109-1111, 24 holds, fault, least deemed Ante, 672-673. cases or, my view, Constitution, novel requirement. 25 suggests, ante 673 rejects non-prison "inadequate", "impractical" achieving Hence, take it, alternatives, constitutionally impregnable. bounds length imposed, Eighth stand proposition "automatic" conversion forbidden holding, surely view converting "automatic". building superstructure procedural steps follow, seems forget case, obviously "a trade-off punish possessed accumulated assets", 2034 Accordingly, concur $200 charge; $50 prohibited leaving jurisdiction permission, drinking alcoholic beverages, possessing narcotics, visiting places beverages narcotics sold, keeping company bad reputation, violating law; disreputable character, faithfully suitable insofar possible, report officer directed permit visit him. alleged two grounds probation: committed 10, 1981. abandoned latter ground informed us acquitted Brief 4, 1. found directed. unauthorized stated petition, Radcliff 134 214 179 (1975), appeals upheld five prison, three-year conviction. reveal warned period, Stephens 245 Ga. 835, 268 330 (1980), remainder Hunter Dean, 240 214, 239 791 (1977), cert. dismissed, 439 281, 99 712, 58 520 (1978); Calhoun Couch, 232 467, 207 455 (1974). Frazier Jordan, 457 F.2d 726 (CA5 1972); re Antazo, Cal.3d 100, 89 Cal.Rptr. 255, 473 P.2d 999 (1970); Tackett, 52 Haw. 601, 483 191 (1971); De Bonis, N.J. 182, 276 A.2d 137 ex rel. Pedersen Blessinger, 56 Wis.2d 286, 201 N.W.2d 778 (1972). previously proceedings. established requirements hearings, "interest treating parolee basic fairness." Id., 484, 2602. addressed "fundamental fairness—the touchstone process—will expense parolees." 1763. Fundamental fairness, determined, presumptively claims mitigated Buder, 412 430, 2199, 37 (1973), Today address advantage context confronting intertwined role play impose, level point spectrum classification. relative classification, fitting problem task Procrustean rationally accomplished," North Carolina Pearce, 395 711, 723, 2072, 2079, (1969). resetting denial process. that, contexts, necessarily instance, reckless driving intoxicated once becomes evident controlling chronic drunken failed. Powell Texas, 392 514, 2145, 1254 (1968); Robinson 370 660, 82 1417, 758 (1962). Ultimately, circumstance control "but crime." contrast like driving, here—indigency—is threat safety welfare society. Numerous forbids Boswell, 605 171 1979), them—a improper negligently deliberately allowed them dissipated manner resulted pay—an entirely legitimate action court. Accord, Wilson, 469 368 (CA2 Taylor, 321 339 (CA4 1963); 115-117, 999, 1007-1009 Huggett, 55 632, 525 1119 (1974); Huggett 266 403, (1978). Commentators similarly permissibility contumacious ABA Standards Criminal 18-7.4 Commentary (2d ed. 1980) ("incarceration should employed examined nonpayment"); 302.2 (distinguishing "contumacious" "good faith effort" funds); National Advisory Commission Goals, Corrections 5.5 Conference Commissioners Uniform Laws, Sentencing Act 3-403, 3-404 Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., Tit. 17-A, 1304; Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 1005-6-4(d). emphasizes several empirical studies suggesting correlation E.g., Green, Race, Social Status, Arrest, 35 Amer.Soc.Rev. 476 Wolfgang, Figlio, & T. Sellin, Delinquency Birth Cohort clear, agree WHITE reject impractical, suggested WHITE. "good-faith "roughly equivalent" Post, 675. Even putting side judicial faith," perceive meaningful reviewing assess sting Under criteria typically daily throughout land hearings: non-imprisonment Nor requirement "novel" emphasized subjected cited 5, supra.

Category: 1