State v. Rugon
Decision Date | 19 September 1977 |
Docket Number | No. 60001,60001 |
Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Gregory RUGON. |
Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Connick, Dist. Atty., William F. Wessel, Louise S. Korns, Bridget Bane, Lindsay Alexis Larson, III, Asst. Dist. Attys., New Orleans, for relator (plaintiff).
John V. Baus and Donald V. Organ, New Orleans, for respondent, Judge Matthew S. Braniff.
The State charged Gregory Rugon with possession of marijuana, in violation of LSA-R.S. 40:966. After pleading not guilty, defendant withdrew his plea and entered a plea of guilty. On that date, May 27, 1977, the Orleans Parish Criminal District Court Judge postponed sentencing. On June 6, 1977, the judge sentenced defendant to serve three months in the Orleans Parish Prison. The court suspended the execution of sentence during good behavior under the terms and conditions set forth in Article 894 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and under the special condition that defendant donate $200 to the Judicial Administrator of the Criminal District Court for the Appellate Process Support and Court Programs Fund. The court further ordered defendant to pay court cost of $67.50 or to serve an additional thirty days in the parish prison. At this time, the State objected to the special condition of probation, the donation. The court overruled the State's objection. Upon the State's application, we granted supervisory writs. La., 346 So.2d 1271 (1977).
The sole issue presented is the validity of the $200 "donation" to the Judicial Administrator.
The State contends that the payment is in direct contravention of LSA-R.S. 15:571.11(D). It argues that the pecuniary penalty imposed by the trial court is a fine or forfeiture and thus subject to the legislative mandate in LSA-R.S. 15:571.11(D). The district court judge asserts that the $200 "donation" is not a fine or forfeiture as encompassed by the Statute.
In determining whether a given payment is a fine, the label given by the trial judge is not conclusive. Shore v. Edmisten, 290 N.C. 628, 227 S.E.2d 553 (1976).
A donation is a gratuity; a voluntary alienation of property; a gift. Webster, N., New International Dictionary (3rd ed. 1961) p. 673. The official court minutes clearly indicate that the suspension of defendant's three-month sentence was conditioned upon his "donation" of $200. If defendant paid $200 to the Judicial Administrator of the Criminal District Court for the Appellate Process Support and Court Programs Fund, his jail sentence would be suspended. If defendant failed to contribute, he would be confined in the parish prison for thirty days. The contribution was not voluntary or gratuitous. Hence, in our opinion, it was not a donation.
In State v. Brannon, 34 La.Ann. 942 (1882), this Court stated that a fine "is a sum expressly imposed in lieu of, or in addition to a term of imprisonment, or as any part of the punishment for an offense." (Emphasis added.) Since that time, we have defined a fine as: "a pecuniary penalty" (State v. Price, 124 La. 917, 50 So. 794 (1909)); "a pecuniary exaction, imposed as a punishment for violation of the law." (McHugh v. Placid Oil Co., 206 La. 511, 19 So.2d 221 (1944)).
When the statute is given a genuine construction to effectuate its funding purpose the payment at issue here falls within the scope of "fine." 1
The trial court judge asserts, however, that the payment in controversy is a valid condition of probation, which can be equated with restitution to the aggrieved party under Louisiana Code of Criminal Procedure Article 895. In pertinent part, that article provides:
In our opinion, this argument is not dispositive of the legal question presented. Formulating the sentence so as to make the exaction a condition of probation does not change its essential nature nor bar its classification as a fine. The specific conditions of probation enumerated in Article 895 are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Hall
...correctly notes that the trial court waived payment of all costs, presumably due to defendant's indigency status. In State v. Rugon, 355 So.2d 876 (La. 1977), an Orleans Parish Criminal District Court judge imposed a special condition on a defendant who pleaded guilty to possession of marij......
-
95-1688 La.App. 3 Cir. 5/8/96, State v. Anderson
...related to rehabilitation, and that authority is broad enough to include the exaction of a fine as a condition of probation. State v. Rugon, 355 So.2d 876 (La.1977). In State v. Johnson, 592 So.2d 818, 820 (La.App. 5 Cir.1991), the fifth circuit stated: [a]rticle 884 allows the imposition o......
-
State v. Wells
...imposed as a condition of probation be payable to the Criminal Court Fund in accordance with La.C.Cr.P. art. 895.1(B)(2). In State v. Rugon, 355 So.2d 876 (La.1977), an Orleans Parish Criminal District Court judge imposed a special condition on the defendant requiring that he “donate” $200 ......
-
State v. Henderson
... ... The same option is open to this court. We could call a "fine" a "fine." We did it in State v. Rugon, 355 So.2d 876, 877 (La.1977), where we said a "fine" was "a sum expressly imposed in lieu of, or in addition to a term of imprisonment, or as any part of the punishment for an offense." (Emphasis added) ... We didn't reach into the air for that definition; we copied it from an ... ...