Tate v. Short, No. 324
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BRENNAN |
| Citation | 401 U.S. 395,91 S.Ct. 668,28 L.Ed.2d 130 |
| Parties | Preston A. TATE v. Herman SHORT |
| Docket Number | No. 324 |
| Decision Date | 02 March 1971 |
v.
Herman SHORT.
Syllabus
Petitioner, an indigent, was convicted of traffic offenses and fined a total of $425. Though Texas law provides only for fines for such offenses, it requires that persons unabe to pay must be incarcerated for sufficient time to satisfy their fines, at the rate of $5 per day, which in petitioner's case meant an 85-day term. The state courts denied his petition for habeas corpus. Held: It is a denial of equal protection to limit punishment to payment of a fine for those who are able to pay it but to convert the fine to imprisonment for those who are unable to pay it. Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, pp. 2—6, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586. 445 S.W.2d 210, reversed and remanded.
Norman Dorsen, New York City, for petitioner.
Joseph G. Rollins, Houston, Tex., for respondent.
Page 396
Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner accumulated fines of $425 on nine convictions in the Corporation Court of Houston, Texas, for traffic offenses. He was unable to pay the fines because of indigency1 and the Corporation Court, which otherwise has no jurisdiction to impose prison sentence,2 committed him to the municipal prison farm according to the provisions of a state statute and municipal ordinance3 whch required that he remain there a suffi-
Page 397
cient time to satisfy the fines at the rate of five dollars for each day; this required that he serve 85 days at the prison farm. After 21 days in custody, petitioner was released on bond when he applied to the County Criminal Court of Harris County for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged that: 'Because I am too poor, I am, therefore, unable to pay the accumulated fine of $425.' The county court held that 'legal cause has been shown for the imprisonment,' and denied the application. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed, stating: 'We overrule appellant's contention that because he is too poor to pay the fines his imprisonment is unconstitutional.' Tex.Cr.App., 445 S.W.2d 210 (1969). We granted certiorari, 399 U.S. 925, 90 S.Ct. 2257, 26 L.Ed.2d 792 (1970). We reverse on the authority of our decision in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970).
The Illinois statute involved in Williams authorized both a fine and imprisonment. Williams was given the maximum sentence for petty theft of one year's imprisonment and a $500 fine, plus $5 in court costs. The judgment, as permitted by the Illinois statute, provided that if, when the one-year sentence expired, Williams did not pay the fine and court costs, he was to remain in jail a sufficient length of time to satisfy the total amount at the rate of $5 per day. We held that the Illinois statute as applied to Williams worked an invidious discrimination solely because he was too poor to pay the fine, and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Although the instant case involves offenses punishable by fines only, petitioner's imprisonment for nonpay-
Page 398
ment constitutes precisely the same unconstitutional discrimination since, like Williams, petitioner was subjected to imprisonment solely because of his indigency.4 In Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U.S. 508, 509, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 26 L.Ed.2d 773 (1970), four members of the Court anticipated the problem of this case and stated the view, which we now adopt, 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.'
Our opinion in Williams stated the premise of this conclusion in saying that 'the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the statu-
Page 399
tory ceiling placed on imprisonment for any substantive offense be the same for all defendants irrespective of their economic status.' 399 U.S., at 244, 90 S.Ct., at 2023—2024. Since Texas has legislated a 'fines only' policy for traffic offenses, that statutory ceiling cannot, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause, limit the punishment to payment of the fine if one is able to pay it, yet convert the fine into a prison term for an indigent defendant without the means to pay his fine. Imprisonment in such a case is not imposed to further any penal objective of the State. It is imposed to augment the State's revenues but obviously does not serve...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jackson v. State of Ala., Nos. 75--1186
...the scope of that rule as a result of Williams v. Illinois, 1970, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586, and Tate v. Short, 1971, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d The Supreme Court held in Williams v. Illinois that an indigent criminal defendant may not be confined beyond the st......
-
Jones v. Governor of Fla., No. 20-12003
...State imprisons a person by reason of his inability to pay a fine. Bearden , 461 U.S. at 667–69, 103 S.Ct. 2064 ; see also Tate v. Short , 401 U.S. 395, 396–98, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) ; Williams v. Illinois , 399 U.S. 235, 240–41, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970). Williams ......
-
Johnson v. New York State Education Department, No. 890
...to travel guaranteed by privileges and immunities clause may not be conditioned upon the forfeiture of welfare benefits; Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) right against deprivation of liberty without due process may not be conditioned upon payment of a fine wh......
-
U.S. v. Decoster, No. 72-1283
...only by fine "cannot be denied a 'record of sufficient completeness' to permit proper consideration of his claims"); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) (indigent unable to pay fine cannot be incarcerated to satisfy offense punishable only by fine); Williams v. ......
-
Jackson v. State of Ala., Nos. 75--1186
...the scope of that rule as a result of Williams v. Illinois, 1970, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586, and Tate v. Short, 1971, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d The Supreme Court held in Williams v. Illinois that an indigent criminal defendant may not be confined beyond the st......
-
Jones v. Governor of Fla., No. 20-12003
...State imprisons a person by reason of his inability to pay a fine. Bearden , 461 U.S. at 667–69, 103 S.Ct. 2064 ; see also Tate v. Short , 401 U.S. 395, 396–98, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) ; Williams v. Illinois , 399 U.S. 235, 240–41, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970). Williams ......
-
Johnson v. New York State Education Department, No. 890
...to travel guaranteed by privileges and immunities clause may not be conditioned upon the forfeiture of welfare benefits; Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) right against deprivation of liberty without due process may not be conditioned upon payment of a fine wh......
-
U.S. v. Decoster, No. 72-1283
...only by fine "cannot be denied a 'record of sufficient completeness' to permit proper consideration of his claims"); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971) (indigent unable to pay fine cannot be incarcerated to satisfy offense punishable only by fine); Williams v. ......
-
WEALTH, EQUAL PROTECTION, AND DUE PROCESS.
...202, 205 (1982). (93.) See generally 434 U.S. 374 (1978). (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 (98.) See, e.g., Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 29 (1956) (Harlan, (99.) S......
-
ACCUSED AND UNCONVICTED: FLEEING FROM WEALTH-BASED PRETRIAL DETENTION.
...OF LAW, MISDEMEANOR BAIL REFORM AND LITIGATION: AN OVERVIEW 10 (2017). (47) See Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971); Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970). (48) See Williams, 399 U.S. at 236. (49) See id. (50) See id. (51) See id. at 240-41. (52) ......
-
YOUR MONEY OR YOUR LIBERTY: CLARIFYING MILITARY CONTINGENT CONFINEMENT.
...punitive authority, and is legal."). [37] MCM (1951 ed.), app. 13. [38] Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970); Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971); Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 [39] Williams, 399 U.S. at 236. [40] Id. [41] Id. [42] Tate, 401 U.S. at 396. [43] Id. [44] Id. [45] Id. [4......
-
A Case Study of Municipal Taxation by Citation
...R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. SAGE.State ex rel. Pedersen v. Blessinger, 201 N.W.2d 778. (1972).Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395. (1971).Teegardin, C. (2016, August 16). Georgia traffic courts taking a bite out of tax refunds. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. https://www.ajc.com......
-
Notice to U.S. Attorney of Committed Fine
...and/or Cost: Release Date: Method: In view of the Supreme Court decisions in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970) and Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971), the inmate may not be retained in custody pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3569 beyond the release date indicated, unless it is determined the ......