Morris v. Schoonfield
| Citation | 90 S.Ct. 2232,26 L.Ed.2d 773,399 U.S. 508 |
| Decision Date | 01 October 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. 782,782 |
| Parties | Phillip MORRIS et al., appellants, v. Hiram SCHOONFIELD, Warden, et al |
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
Robert G. Fisher, Baltimore, Md., for appellants.
George L. Russell, Jr., Baltimore, Md., for appellees.
We noted probable jurisdiction1 and set the case for oral argument with Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586, 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.
I agree that this case should be remanded for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586, 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...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parker v. Mandel
...termed the right to vote "too precious, too fundamental" to be burdened by Virginia's poll tax. 383 U.S. at 670, 86 S.Ct. 1079. 12 The Morris case was subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court for consideration of a recently enacted Maryland statute in light of Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.......
-
In re Alien Children Ed. Litigation
...indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full. 401 U.S. at 398, 91 S.Ct. at 671, quoting, Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508, 509, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 2233, 26 L.Ed.2d 773 (1970) (per curiam). The equal protection clause does not require "that fines must be structured to reflect each perso......
-
State ex rel. Moats v. Janco, 12979
......Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (decided March 2, 1971); Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586; Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 26 L.Ed.2d 773. . As stated in the Court's opinion in this case, the justice, in his ......
-
Antazo, In re
...163 (1965); Kelly v. Schoonfield (D.Md.1968) 285 F.Supp. 732; Morris v. Schoonfield (D.Md.1969) 301 F.Supp. 158, vacated, 399 U.S. 508, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 26 L.Ed.2d 773; Sawyer v. District of Columbia (D.C.Ct.App.1968) 238 A.2d 314; People v. Williams (1969) 41 Ill.2d 511, 244 N.E.2d 197 revd.......
-
WEALTH, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND DUE PROCESS.
...(94.) Id. at 386. (95.) 399 U.S. 235, 244 (1970). (96.) See id. at 236-37. (97.) 401 U.S. 395, 398 (1971) (quoting Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508, 509 (1970)). (98.) See, e.g., Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 29 (1956) (Harlan, (99.) See 399 U.S. at 260 (Harlan, J., concurring in res......