|
|
| |
| Sat, Aug. 30, 2008 |  |
 |
|
||
| |
Court: Judge should have considered defendant's ability to pay Thursday, Jan 24, 2008 By John Lyon Arkansas News Bureau LITTLE ROCK - A Crawford County circuit judge erred when he revoked a man's suspended sentence for failure to pay fines without considering the man's claim that he was unable to pay, the state Court of Appeals ruled Wednesday. Garland Phillips pleaded guilty to overdraft in September 2005. His sentence was suspended on the conditions that he pay $912 restitution at the rate of $50 per month and, upon completion of his restitution payments, he pay a $1,250 fine and $150 in court costs at the rate of $50 per month. Phillips also was ordered to provide a DNA sample and pay a DNA fee of $250. In February 2006, Phillips pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree battery. His sentence in that case was suspended on the conditions that he pay a $750 fine and $150 in court costs at the rate of $25 per month. The state filed a petitioned to revoke Phillips' suspended sentence in May 2006, alleging he failed to pay his fines and provide a DNA sample. Phillips testified at a revocation hearing that his only income was $660 per month in disability payments. He presented evidence that after monthly expenses, he had only $60 left and was unable to pay his fines. Circuit Judge Michael Medlock ruled he was not required to consider whether Phillips was unable to pay. He sentenced Phillips to two years in prison with an additional four years suspended in each of the two cases, to run concurrently. In its opinion Wednesday reversing the ruling, the Court of Appeals said Medlock was required to consider Phillips' explanation for not paying his fines. State law "sets forth several factors to be considered by the trial court, including the defendant's employment status, earning ability, financial resources, the willfulness of the defendant's failure to pay and any other special circumstances that may have a bearing on the defendant's ability to pay," Judge Brian Miller wrote in the opinion. The appeals court remanded the case to circuit court for a determination of whether Phillips' failure to pay was inexcusable and whether he failed to provide a DNA sample. The Court of Appeals said it could not consider the DNA issue because Medlock did not rule on that point. |
