Court Opinion

ID: 9631705
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:46:52.639718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:31:30.394836
License: Public Domain

CARDINE, Justice,
dissenting, with whom THOMAS, Justice, joins.
I dissent from the majority’s decision to vacate the portion of appellant’s probation which required him to reimburse the public defender for his defense. The decision to vacate that portion of appellant’s probation sentence is made without sufficient rationale, explanation or precedent.
The majority cites an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part for the proposition that “application of restitution and cost repayment statutes without a judicial finding of ability to pay are statutes designed as debt collecting devices masquerading as penal laws and contravene the constitutional prohibition against imprisonment for debt.” Maj. op. at 313 (citing Schiefer v. State, 774 P.2d 133, 143 (Wyo.1989) (Urbigkit, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). That proposition represents idealism that is not required by statute nor supported by decisions of this court. The concern for avoiding imprisonment for debt is satisfied in all cases, juvenile and adult, by the opportunity to make a showing of inability to pay prior to revocation. Since an opportunity to make a showing of inability to pay exists, there is no need to restrain judges’ jurisdiction to impose reimbursement for defense costs or subject each of those orders to review by this court to determine if there was adequate inquiry into the juvenile’s ability to pay.
When we have required an inquiry into the defendant’s ability to pay, we have done so only when a statutory provision such as W.S. 7-6-106(c) requires that the court “consider the financial resources of the person * * See Seaton v. State, 811 P.2d 276, 284 (Wyo.1991). But consideration of financial resources of the person does not equate to the person having funds in the bank to presently pay. The defendant may be highly skilled, employable at substantial compensation, and have a decided future ability to pay. The court’s order to pay must be reasonable and under circumstances that rest upon a probability of payment. However, with respect to this case, the express requirement of W.S. 7-6-106(c) (1987) that the trial court inquire into ability to pay is not present in the juvenile statute which allows the court to order reimbursement for public defender services.
W.S. 14-6-235(c) provides:
Legal services rendered to a child for his benefit and protection are necessities which the child’s parents or any person obligated by law for the child’s support may be held responsible. The court may order that all or any part of the costs and expenses enumerated in subsection (b) of this section except jury fees, costs and travel expenses, be reimbursed to the county by the child, his parents or any person legally obligated for his support, or any of them jointly and severally, upon terms the court may direct. [emphasis added]
*325Although the majority neglected to do so, it is important to read this section in conjunction with the unique juvenile court jurisdictional statutes. W.S. 14-6-203(b) states:
Coincident with proceedings concerning a minor alleged to be delinquent, neglected or in need of supervision, the court has jurisdiction to:
* * # * ⅜: *
(ii) Order any party to the proceedings to perform any acts, duties and responsibilities the court deems necessary; or
(iii) Order any party to the proceedings to refrain from any act or conduct the court deems detrimental to the best interest and welfare of the minor or essential to the enforcement of any lawful order of disposition of the minor made by the court, [emphasis added]
This broad jurisdictional provision expresses the legislature’s desire to give juvenile courts broad power for determining what is appropriate for a minor. These broad jurisdictional provisions are absent from the adult statute providing for reimbursement for public defender costs. Instead, the adult provision requires that the judge inquire into ability to pay. W.S. 7-6-106(c) (1987). When a statute requires inquiry into ability to pay, this court should require that district courts do so. However, when the statute does not contain that requirement, this court should refrain from engaging in judicial legislation by creating a requirement where none exists. Thus, we have said: “If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, we must abide by the plain meaning of the statute * * Deloges v. State ex rel. Wyoming Workers’ Compensation Div., 750 P.2d 1329, 1331 (Wyo.1988); see also West v. Wyoming State Treasurer, 822 P.2d 1269, 1272 (Wyo.1991).
While the majority cites our rules of statutory construction, it does not heed them. This statute is not ambiguous. There is no need to resort to “construction” or “interpretation” or the addition of requirements under the guise of statutory interpretation. The clear and unambiguous plain meaning of this statute is that in a juvenile proceeding the district court is not required to inquire into the juvenile’s ability to pay when ordering reimbursement of costs of legal services to the public defender as a condition of probation. The fear of imprisonment for debt is unfounded. Establishment of inability to pay prior to revocation is sufficient protection against imprisonment as provided in Article 1, § 5 of the Wyoming Constitution: “No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud.”
The plain language of the statute and the broad jurisdictional provisions dictate that this court refrain from creating a “requirement” of inquiry into ability to pay not in the statute. If such requirement is necessary, the legislature should provide for it, not this court. The broad jurisdictional provisions indicate a legislative intent that we should afford district and juvenile courts more discretion in juvenile matters. The majority’s creation of this requirement removes that discretion and thwarts the deference to which courts are entitled in juvenile proceedings.