 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Blakeman v. State5/6/1988
ement is that he failed to obey; yes, he did. By nature of the statute in itself, the Legislature has overrode that.
"Was his failure to obey contemptuous? And that is apparently to this Court no longer an issue, as to the surcharge on the family violence.
"I do find that it is not a fine as such, it is a revenue collecting matter, such as court costs, et cetera.
"I would like to strike that, but I cannot do so by statute, and I am not going to violate one of the statutes of the State of Wyoming."
and determined:
"The Court does find that the defendant is in contempt of court by failure to pay the surcharge, and will sentence the defendant to six months in the County Jail for that contempt.
"THE COURT: The defendant is back in the custody of the State Penitentiary. Court is in recess."
The order when entered on September 1, recited and decreed:
"1. That there was a lawful order.
"2. That the order was valid as to the term requiring payment of the victim's surcharge within ten (10) days.
"3. That the defendant did have knowledge of that order.
"4. That the defendant failed to pay the victim's surcharge within ten (10) days.
"5. That the defendant is in contempt of Court by failure to pay the surcharge. "IT IS THEREFORE ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court, that the defendant, Clayton Blakeman, is guilty of contempt of Court which occurred on or about the 23rd day of July, 1987, in the County of Campbell and the State of Wyoming.
"IT IS THE SENTENCE OF THE COURT that the defendant shall be incarcerated in the Campbell County Detention Center for a period of six (6) months for the offense of contempt of Court."
An appeal was promptly taken from that decision to the district court where argument under Bearden v. Georgia, supra, was made by the public defender. The order affirming the county court finding of contempt was entered by the district court as appellate tribunal on October 9th, stating in part:
"1. The Bearden case is distinguishable from the present case in that the Bearden case dealt with revocation of probation whereas the present case deals with contempt proceedings.
"2. There was a sufficient basis for the County Judge to find that the defendant's failure to pay was willful, and not excusable."
The lower court's casual differentiation of the client's compensation fund assessment from fines and restitution escapes me. See Bearden v. Georgia, supra; Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971); Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970). A surcharge on the criminal penalty which funds crime victims' compensation is a form of punishment and is a fine. State v. Champe, Fla., 373 So.2d 874, 880 (1978). Although this court has previously held a fine is not a debt, In re MacDonald, 4 Wyo. 150, 33 P. 18 (1893), 95 years have passed since that decision and I have seen the fallacy in that view as applied to the reality faced by today's indigent criminal defendant. Additionally, the decisions of the United States Supreme Court on the constitutional issue are determinative. The effect in this case no differently results in penal confinement than would in the case of any other non-compliance with an impossible condition. As such, we are faced with imprisonment for debt under Wyoming Constitution, Art. 1, § 5, "No person shall be imprisoned for debt, except in cases of fraud."
"* * * f the State determines a fine or restitution to be the appropriate and adequate penalty for the crime, it may not thereaft
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Wyoming DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|