Nelson v. Tullos

• Decision Date: 08 December 1975
• Docket Number: No. 48800,48800
• Citation: 323 So.2d 539
• Parties: Micky Carl NELSON, a minor, by his mother and next friend v. Lavell TULLOS and James L. Spencer.
• Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Page 539

323 So.2d 539

Micky Carl NELSON, a minor, by his mother and next friend v. Lavell TULLOS and James L. Spencer.

No. 48800.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Dec. 8, 1975.

Joe M. Ragland, Jackson, for appellant.

W. E. Gore, Jr., Robert G. Nichols, Jr., G. Garland Lyell, III, Jackson, for appellees.

Before RODGERS, PATTERSON and SUGG, JJ.

SUGG, Justice:

This is an appeal from an order of the County Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County denying a petition for writ of habeas corpus filed on behalf of Micky Carl Nelson, a minor, by Margie Nelson, his mother. The issue is whether the imprisonment of the minor for failure to satisfy his traffic fines denied him equal protection of the laws graranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Secondary questions involve the legality of imprisoning a minor with adult offenders and the right to court-appointed counsel where there is a possibility that an indigent's conviction may result in imprisonment.

On February 15, 1975, Micky Carl Nelson, a 17-year-old child, was ticketed by officers of the Jackson Police Department for leaving the scene of an accident, failure to keep his vehicle under control and driving without a license. All of these offenses were punishable under an alternative sentencing ordinance by a fine, jail sentence or both. When petitioner failed to appear at a court hearing scheduled for February 21, 1975, a bench warrant issued for his arrest. Petitioner was arrested on February 22, 1975, and taken before a Jackson traffic court. The police justice knew that petitioner was an indigent minor and considered appointing counsel for him, but then decided to impose only a fine thus obviating the need for counsel. Petitioner pleaded guilty and was fined $250. While questioning petitioner about his ability to pay the fine, the court was informed of petitioner's past traffic offenses, his tardiness in paying the fines from those offenses, and the existence of three delinquent fines from a previous conviction.

A review of petitioner's driving record showed that between November 1971 and March 1974 he had been convicted of and fined for eight traffic offenses. The court's investigation revealed that although these fines were ultimately paid, petitioner had been arrested on two separate occasions for failure to satisfy the fines after a reasonable period of time. Further investigation disclosed that on August 3, 1974, petitioner was fined $225 by a Jackson traffic court for three offenses committed during June and July of 1974. At the time of the February 22, 1975, court appearance these fines remained unpaid.

After reviewing these facts, it was the court's opinion that petitioner's failure to pay the fines was not due to his indigency but to indifference and disregard for law enforcement. The court told the petitioner that he would not be given an opportunity to pay any of the fines in installments because that opportunity had been afforded him in the past. Petitioner was ordered incarcerated in the Jackson city jail to work off the fines totalling $474 at the rate of $3 per day.

On April 2, 1975, petitioner filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in the County Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. The petitioner set forth the fact of his imprisonment, alleged that he was confined because of his inability to pay his traffic fines, and contended that such confinement violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. After a hearing, the court denied the petition on the ground petitioner's past conduct indicated that he would be a 'bad risk' with regard to the payment of his traffic fines on an installment basis.

Once again this Court must address itself to the misconceived function of the writ of habeas corpus in this state. Unlike the boundless federal habeas corpus, the writ of habeas corpus in Mississippi is narrow in its scope and applicability. See Keller v. Romero, 303 So.2d 481, 483-84 (Miss.1974). In this state a writ of habeas corpus has the principal function of testing the legality of a petitioner's detention prior to his conviction. Habeas corpus may be utilized as a post-conviction remedy to release a petitioner from imprisonment only where the petitioner was convicted under an invalid statute or by a court lacking jurisdiction. Keller v. Romero, supra at 482; State v. Ridinger, 279 So.2d 618, 619 (Miss.1973); Young v. State, 264 So.2d 821, 823 (Miss.1972); Ledbetter v. Bishop, 210 So.2d 880, 882 (Miss.1968); Allred v. State, 187 So.2d 28, 30-31 (Miss.1966); Mississippi Code Annotated section 11-43-3 (1972). See also '1965-66 Mississippi Supreme Court Term-Some Significant Cases.' 38 Miss.L.J. 1, 11 (1966).

In this jurisdiction relief for a defendant who claims to have been convicted as the result of a deprivation of his constitutional rights is by writ of error coram nobis. As this Court pointed out in Botts v. State, 210 So.2d 777 (Miss.1968):

The function of a writ of error coram nobis is to bring to the court's attention some matter or fact which does not appear on the face of the record which was unknown to the court or the parties at the time, and which, if known, and properly presented, would have prevented the rendition of the original judgment. The violation of defendant's constitutional right to be represented by counsel constitutes ground for granting a writ of error coram nobis to correct a former judgment. 18 Am.Jur.2d Coram Nobis § 17 (1965). (210 So.2d 779).

Accord Clayton v. State, 254 So.2d 874, 875 (Miss.1971); Allred v. State, supra at 30.

We have held, however, that where a petition is filed seeking post-conviction relief the court should look through the form and to the substance of the petition. Where a case for relief under a writ of error coram nobis is stated the court should treat it accordingly. Young v. State,supra at 823; Allred v. State, supra at 32. Because the instant petition falls within the Young rule, we treat the proceeding as an appeal from a denial of a petition for writ of error coram nobis. This is not to be construed as an abrogation of the rule that habeas corpus does not lie as a general post-conviction remedy in Mississippi. The Young pronouncement is grounded in equitable considerations and should not become the target of abuse by members of the bar. One purpose for requiring the proper denomination of pleadings is to apprise the respective parties as well as the court of the nature of the suit presented and the relief sought.

Coming then to the constitutional question presented, we hold that the imprisonment of the petitioner denied him the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and violated the directive laid down in Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971), pertaining to imprisonment of an indigent for inability to pay a fine.

Tate held that an indigent may not be jailed because of his inability to make immediate payment of a fine under a fines only statute. This rule applies with equal force where the statute authorizes a fine, imprisonment or both, and the imprisonment does not exceed the statutory maximum sentence. 401 U.S. at 398, 91 S.Ct. at 670-71, 28 L.Ed.2d at 133. The procedure condemned as constitutionally deficient in Tate is the same procedure that was followed in the lower court as to the $250 fine of February 22, 1975. We hold, therefore, that a court may not first fine a defendant and then, because of his indigency, convert the fine into a jail sentence for failure of the defendant to make immediate payment. Reasonable alternatives to incarceration must first be resorted to in an attempt to afford the indigent an opportunity to satisfy his fine. For some suggested alternatives see Tate v. Short, supra at 400 n. 5, 91 S.Ct. 668; Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 244-45 n. 21, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1969); Note, 44 Miss.L.J. 556, 559 (1973). This is not to say that an indigent defendant may never be imprisoned for his inability to satisfy his fine in spite of a good faith effort to pay the fine. Indeed, Tate left open the possibility that imprisonment may sometimes be the only 'enforcement method' available to a court:

We emphasize that our holding today does not suggest any constitutional infirmity in imprisonment of a defendant with the means to pay a fine who refuses or neglects to do so. Nor is our decision to be understood as precluding imprisonment as an enforcement method when alternative means are unsuccessful despite the defendant's reasonable efforts to satisfy the fines by those means; the determination of the constitutionality of imprisonment in that circumstance must await the presentation of a concrete case. (401 U.S. at 400-401, 91 S.Ct. at 672).

See Smith v. State, 223 N.W.2d 775 (Minn.1974), affirming the imprisonment of an indigent convicted of a traffic offense where the defendant defaulted in the payment of his fine after being given a reasonable period of time in which to satisfy the fine.

Certainly, we do not take lightly the imprisonment of an indigent for inability to pay his fine. Admittedly, it smacks somewhat of the discarded practice of imprisoning one who is unable to pay his debts. However, when faced with a habitual offender or recalcitrant defendant who is without resources to pay yet evinces a callous disregard for law enforcement, imprisonment may often be the only enforcement method left.

In ordering that petitioner be released and given a reasonable opportunity to satisfy his fines, we are not unmindful of the fact that petitioner was delinquent in the payment of his August 1974 fines of $225, and exhibited no good faith efforts to satisfy these fines prior to his incarceration. However, as the case must be remanded as to one of the fines, we feel that the interests of justice are best served by first affording petitioner an opportunity to satisfy all of his fines...