Spurlock v. Noe
| Decision Date | 21 May 1971 |
| Citation | 467 S.W.2d 320 |
| Parties | Rudy SPURLOCK, Appellant, v. Amel NOE, Jailer, Lee County, Kentucky, Appellee. |
| Court | Supreme Court of Kentucky |
Elmer Cunnagin, Jr., McKee, for appellant.
John B. Breckinridge, Atty. Gen., David E. Murrell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Frankfort, for appellee.
VANCE, Commissioner.
This is an appeal from an order dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The petition for the writ alleged illegal detention of the appellant because of his inability to satisfy a fine imposed by the Lee Circuit Court.
The appellant was indicted by the grand jury of Lee County, Kentucky, for the offense of malicious shooting and a jury fixed his punishment (apparently for a lesser offense) at confinement in jail for a period of twelve months and a fine of $3,000.00. The appellant has now completely served the jail sentence and the Jailer of Lee County has continued to hold him in custody for nonpayment of the fine. The petition for writ of habeas corpus alleged that appellant had no money or property of any kind and that his imprisonment resulted solely from indigency. The evidence at the hearing on the petition sufficiently established that appellant is unable to pay the fine.
The United States Supreme Court in Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (decided March 2, 1971) held that an indigent may not be committed to jail for failure to make immediate payment of a fine. The states are prohibited 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.
Our courts are bound by that decision and under its authority the appellant must not be further confined solely because of his inability at this time to pay his fine.
The ruling in Tate v. Short overturns an established procedure in Kentucky and for that reason we are not inclined to proceed beyond the requirement of that decision. It is accordingly noted that in Tate v. Short the Supreme Court emphasized that the holding therein does not suggest any constitutional infirmities in the imprisonment of a defendant with the means to pay a fine who refuses or neglects to do so.
The court quoted with approval from Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970) as follows:
'The State is not powerless to enforce judgments against those financially unable to pay a fine; indeed, a different result would amount to inverse discrimination since it would enable an indigent to avoid both the fine and imprisonment for nonpayment whereas other defendants must always suffer one or the other...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Smith v. State
...state and Federal cases.4 See, Frazier v. Jordan, 457 F.2d 726 (5 Cir. 1972); State v. Snyder, 203 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 1972); Spurlock v. Noe, 467 S.W.2d 320 (Ky.1971); State v. Tackett, 52 Haw. 601, 483 P.2d 191 (1971); State v. DeBonis, 58 N.J. 182, 276 A.2d 137 (1971); Hood v. Smedley, 498 ......
-
State v. Snyder, 54944
...Cal.Rptr. 255, 473 P.2d 999; Johnson v. State, 250 So.2d 347 (Fla.App.1971); State v. Tackett, 52 Hawaii 601, 483 P.2d 191; Spurlock v. Noe, 467 S.W.2d 320 (Ky.1971); State v. De Bonis, 58 N.J. 182, 276 A.2d 137; In Re Jackson, 26 Ohio St.2d 51, 268 N.E.2d 812; Rutledge v. Turner, 495 P.2d ......
-
Gilbert v. State
...457 F.2d 726, 728 (5th Cir.1972); Hood v. Smedley, 498 P.2d 120 (Alaska 1972); State v. Snyder, 203 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 1972); Spurlock v. Noe, 467 S.W.2d 320 (Ky.1970); State v. DeBonis, 58 N.J. 182, 276 A.2d 137 (1971); Commonwealth ex rel., Parrish v. Cliff, 451 Pa. 427, 304 A.2d 158 (1973)......
-
Com. ex rel. Parrish v. Cliff
...issue was neither raised nor considered in the court below. [7] Cf. State v. DeBonis, 58 N.J. 182, 276 A.2d 137 (1971); Spurlock v. Noe, 467 S.W.2d 320 (Ky.1971); State v. Tackett, 483 P.2d 191 (Hawaii 1971); Johnson State, 250 So.2d 347 (Fla.App.1971); ABA Project on Standards for Criminal......