MORRIS ET AL.
v.
SCHOONFIELD, WARDEN, ET AL.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Imprisonment For Debt cases and more on FLexlaw
Per Curiam.
We noted probable jurisdiction1 and set the case for oral argument with Williams v. Illinois, ante, p. 235, decided today. However, Maryland has recently enacted legislation2 dealing directly with the issue presented, and our holding in Williams, that an indigent may not be imprisoned beyond the maximum term specified by statute solely because of his failure to pay a fine and court costs, may shed further light on the question raised here. We therefore vacate the judgment and remand the case to the District Court for reconsideration in light of the intervening legislation and our holding in Williams v. Illinois, supra.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Chapter 147 of the 1970 Laws of Maryland (approved April 15, 1970).
[*509] Mr. Justice White,
with whom Mr. Justice Douglas, Mr. Justice Brennan, and Mr. Justice Marshall join,
concurring.
I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Williams v. Illinois, ante, p. 235, and the recent enactment by the Maryland General Assembly of new legislation bearing on the questions presented.
However, I deem it appropriate to state my view that the same constitutional defect condemned in Williams also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.
As I understand it, Williams v. Illinois does not mean that a State cannot jail a person who has the means to pay a fine but refuses or neglects to do so. Neither does it finally answer the question whether the State’s interest in deterring unlawful conduct and in enforcing its penal laws through fines as well as jail sentences will justify imposing an “equivalent” jail sentence on the indigent who, despite his own reasonable efforts and the State’s attempt at accommodation, is unable to secure the necessary funds. But Williams means, at minimum, that in imposing fines as punishment for criminal conduct more care must be taken to provide for those whose lack of funds would otherwise automatically convert a fine into a jail sentence.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (19 total)
-
Noel v. State, 191 So. 3d 370 (Fla. 2016)…rohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. Id. at 398, 91 S.Ct. 668 (quoting Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508, 509, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 26 L.Ed.2d 773 (1970) (White, J., concurring)). Under Williams and Tate, “if the State determines a fine or restitution to be the appropriate and adequate penalty for the crime, it may not thereafter imprison a person solely bec…1 / 2
-
Noel v. State, 127 So. 3d 769 (Fla. 4th DCA 2013)…hibits the State from imposing a fíne as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.’ ” Id. at 398, 91 S.Ct. 668 (quoting Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508, 509, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 26 L.Ed.2d 773 (1970)). Williams was a case where the defendant received a jail sentence longer than the law allowed because of his indigency. Tate was a case where the applicable statute called for only a fine, but the defenda…1 / 4
-
Phillips v. Allen, 255 So. 2d 528 (Fla. 1971)…er’s sentences, any issue regarding the fines evaporates and no further question exists regarding a possible violation of Tate v. Short, supra, Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. [*529] 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970) or Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 26 L.Ed.2d 773 (1970). The writ heretofore issued is discharged. It is so ordered. CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur. ERVIN, Acting C. J., dissents with opinion. . For violation of Orlando Ordinance: 39.63, $250 or 30…
Previewing 3 of 19 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Morris v. Schoonfield, 397 U.S. 960 (U.S. 1970)