A Book from the Library of Defense
Namespaces
Variants
Actions

Library Collections

Webinars & Podcasts
Motions
Disclaimer

Oregon Appellate Ct - July 9, 2014

From OCDLA Library of Defense
< Blog:Case Reviews(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

by: Abassos, Lisa Fitzgerald, Evan Ottaviani, Katie Watson and Tim OConnor • July 9, 2014 • no comments

Line 26: Line 26:
  
 
The SCOTUS case ''Bearden v. Georgia'' establishes that it is a violation of the Due Process Clause for a state to revoke an indigent defendant’s probation for a failure to pay fines and restitution without determining either the ability to pay or the adequacy of alternative forms of punishment. ''Bearden'' does not hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits the imposition of non-incarcerative sanctions for failing to pay fines or restitution. Here, an indigent defendant was sentenced to 12 months additional probation at a show cause hearing for failure to pay fines and restitution. He appealed claiming that, under ''Bearden'', the state had the burden to prove that he could have made payments prior to imposing any additional sentence for a failure to pay. The court does not address this claim because Bearden only applies to cases where defendants are incarcerated for an inability to pay. Affirmed. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149112.pdf State v. Bell], 264 Or App ___ (2014).
 
The SCOTUS case ''Bearden v. Georgia'' establishes that it is a violation of the Due Process Clause for a state to revoke an indigent defendant’s probation for a failure to pay fines and restitution without determining either the ability to pay or the adequacy of alternative forms of punishment. ''Bearden'' does not hold that the Due Process Clause prohibits the imposition of non-incarcerative sanctions for failing to pay fines or restitution. Here, an indigent defendant was sentenced to 12 months additional probation at a show cause hearing for failure to pay fines and restitution. He appealed claiming that, under ''Bearden'', the state had the burden to prove that he could have made payments prior to imposing any additional sentence for a failure to pay. The court does not address this claim because Bearden only applies to cases where defendants are incarcerated for an inability to pay. Affirmed. [http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/docs/A149112.pdf State v. Bell], 264 Or App ___ (2014).
{{wl-publish: 2014-07-13 22:32:32 -0700 | Abassos:Alex  Bassos  }}
+
{{wl-publish: 2014-07-13 22:32:43 -0700 | Abassos:Alex  Bassos  }}

Revision as of 22:32, July 14, 2014