Legal Document

401 U.S. 395 91 Supreme Court Reporter 668 28 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 130 Preston Atlantic TATEv.Herman SHORT. Number 324. Argued Jan. 14, 1971. Decided March 2, Syllabus Petitioner, an indigent, was convicted of traffic offenses and fined a total $425. Though Texas law provides only for fines such offenses, it requires that persons unabe to pay must be incarcerated sufficient time satisfy their fines, at the rate $5 per day, which in petitioner's case meant 85-day term. The state courts denied his petition habeas corpus. Held: It is denial equal protection limit punishment payment fine those who are able but convert imprisonment unable it. Williams versus Illinois, 399 235, Pages 2—6, 90 2018, 26 586. 445 South Western Reporter, 2nd 210, reversed remanded. Norman Dorsen, New York City, petitioner. Joseph G. Rollins, Houston, Tex., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Petitioner accumulated $425 on nine convictions Corporation Texas, offenses. He because indigency1 Court, otherwise has no jurisdiction impose prison sentence,2 committed him municipal farm according provisions statute ordinance3 whch required he remain there five dollars each day; this serve 85 days farm. After 21 custody, petitioner released bond when applied County Criminal Harris writ alleged that: 'Because & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions am too poor, am, therefore, $425.' county court held 'legal cause been shown imprisonment,' application. Appeals affirmed, stating: 'We overrule appellant's contention poor unconstitutional.' Tex.Cr.App., 210 (1969). We granted certiorari, 925, 2257, 792 (1970). reverse authority our decision 586 2 Illinois involved authorized both imprisonment. given maximum sentence petty theft one year's $500 fine, plus costs. judgment, as permitted by statute, provided if, one-year expired, did not costs, jail length amount day. worked invidious discrimination solely therefore violated Equal Protection Clause. 3 Although instant involves punishable only, nonpayment constitutes precisely same unconstitutional since, like Williams, subjected indigency.4 In Morris Schoonfield, 508, 509, 2232, 773 (1970), four members anticipated problem stated view, we now adopt, 4 'the constitutional defect condemned also inheres jailing indigent failing make immediate any whether or accompanied term extends beyond may imposed person willing fine. case, Constitution prohibits State from imposing then automatically converting into defendant cannot forthwith full.' 5 Our premise conclusion saying Clause Fourteenth Amendment statutory ceiling placed substantive offense all defendants irrespective economic status.' U.S., 244, S.Ct., 2023—2024. Since legislated 'fines only' policy cannot, consistently with Clause, if it, yet without means Imprisonment further penal objective State. augment State's revenues obviously does purpose; imprisonment, rather than aiding collection revenue, saddles cost feeding housing period 6 There are, however, other alternatives constitutionally resort its concededly valid interest enforcing fines. repeat observation regard, 244-245, 2024 (footnotes omitted): 7 'The powerless enforce judgments against financially fine; indeed, different result would inverse since enable avoid whereas always suffer conviction. 8 'It unnecessary us canvass numerous legislative enactment—or judges within scope authority—may order imprisoning involuntary Appellant suggested several plans, some already utilized States, while others resemble proposed various studies. free choose among variety solutions and, course, devise new ones.'5 9 emphasize holding today suggest infirmity refuses neglects do so. Nor understood precluding enforcement method alternative unsuccessful despite defendant's reasonable efforts means; determination constitutionality circumstance await presentation concrete case. 10 judgment remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. 11 so ordered. 12 Judgment 13 BLACK concurs result. 14 HARLAN basis considerations set forth concurring 259, 2031, 15 BLACKMUN, concurring. 16 Court's couched terms being protective defendant. merely add reversal well encourage legislatures away have broad range Eliminating whenever prescribed avoids issue indigency occasions leaves possible Eighth considerations. If, nation, ever reach happy point where personal convenience side really serious about resolving problems irresponsibility frightful carnage spews upon highways, development kind undesirable. At corpus hearing assistant district attorney appearing stipulated: stipulate poverty stricken, whole family periods therein, probably will be.' Petitioner's unconstradicted testimony that, prior earned between $25 $60 week casual employment. received monthly Veterans Administration check $104. wife two children dependent support. were advised oral argument under automobile subject execution collect Tex.Code Crim.Proc., Article 4.14 (1966) provides: corporation incorporated city, town village shall corporate limits criminal cases arising ordinances village, concurrent justice peace precinct said situated laws State, exceed hundred dollars, limits.' 45.53 pertinent part: 'A account failure costs can discharged showing: '1. That costs: '2. remained day.' Houston Code § 35—8 'Each non-payment out conviction misdemeanor receive credit ($5.00) day fraction served.' 35—9 '(A)dditional prisoner superintendent good conduct, industry obedience; provided, additional more one-half (1/2) day's work.' An implementing regulation Fines Bureau Division interprets provision follows: 'If appears found guilty money $5.00 certain allowed $7.50 appear increased served before release. Several procedure paying installments. E.g., Cal.Penal 1205 (1970) (misdemeanors); Del.Code Ann., Tit. 11, 4332(c) (Supp.1968); Md.Ann.Code, 38, 4(a)(2) (Supp.1970); Mass.Gen.Laws chapter 279, First (1959); N.Y.Code Crim.Proc. 470—d(1)(b) Pa.Stat.Ann., 19, 953 (1964); Wash.Rev.Code 9.92.070. This widely endorsed effective save expense maintaining necessity supporting welfare program confined. See, e.g., Final Report National Commission Reform Federal Laws, Proposed 3302(2) (1971); American Bar Association, Project Standards Justice, Sentencing Alternatives Procedures 2.7(b), 119 122 (Approved Draft 1968); President's Law Enforcement Task Force Report: Courts 18 (1967); ALI, Model Penal 302.1(1) (Proposed Official 1962). See Comment, Use Penalties Offenses, 1966 U.Ill.L.F. 460; Note, Indigent Nonpayment Fines, 64 Mich.L.Rev. 938 (1966); Costs: A Look Constitution, 22 Vand.L.Rev. 611 (1969); Fining—An Evaluation, 101 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1013 (1953); Judge Sellin, Recent Legislation Sweden (1947); Cordes, Their Enforcement, J.Crim.Sci. 46 (1950); S. Rubin, Haw. Hawai‘i KFH45 A2 Weihofen, Edwards Rosenzweig, Correction 253 n. 154 (1963); E. Sutherland D. Cressey, Principles Criminology 276 (6th ed. 1960). 244—245, 21, 2024, 21.

Classification Label: 1