State v. Coleman

Supreme Court of Louisiana

State v. Coleman

576 So. 2d 518, 1991 La. LEXIS 732, 1991 WL 43349

CourtSupreme Court of Louisiana

DecidedMarch 28, 1991

DocketNo. 91-K-0210

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 576 So. 2d 518 (State v. Coleman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Louisiana primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State v. Coleman, 576 So. 2d 518, 1991 La. LEXIS 732, 1991 WL 43349 (La. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

In re Coleman, William; —Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 90KA-0153; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. “2” Number 332-437.

Prior report: La.App., 572 So.2d 750.

Granted in part; denied in part. This case is remanded to the district court for determination of the defendant’s present ability to pay his fine. A person may not be incarcerated solely because of his inability to pay a fine. Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971); Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970). If the district court determines that the defendant lacks the present ability to pay, the court shall delete the provision of defendant’s sentence requiring incarceration in the event of default in payment of the fine, without prejudice to the state’s right to enforce collection of the fine in the same manner as a money judgment in a civil case. La.C. [519]*519Cr.P. art. 886. In all other respects the application is denied.

HALL, J., dissents.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In re Coleman, William; —Defendant(s); Applying for Writ of Certiorari and/or Review; to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Number 90KA-0153; Parish of Orleans Criminal District Court Div. “2” Number 332-437.

Prior report: La.App., 572 So.2d 750.

Granted in part; denied in part. This case is remanded to the district court for determination of the defendant’s present ability to pay his fine. A person may not be incarcerated solely because of his inability to pay a fine. Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971); Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970). If the district court determines that the defendant lacks the present ability to pay, the court shall delete the provision of defendant’s sentence requiring incarceration in the event of default in payment of the fine, without prejudice to the state’s right to enforce collection of the fine in the same manner as a money judgment in a civil case. La.C. [519]*519Cr.P. art. 886. In all other respects the application is denied.

HALL, J., dissents.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

576 So. 2d 518, 1991 La. LEXIS 732, 1991 WL 43349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-v-coleman-la-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack