State v. CoonState v. Coon
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Baton Rouge, James Allan Norris, Jr., Dist. Atty., Geary Aycock, Asst. Dist. Atty., West Monroe, for appellee.
NORRIS, Judge.
Defendant, Robert Earl Coon, age 30, was charged with distribution of marijuana in violation of
On appeal, defendant‘s prinсipal complaint is that the imposition of a $500 fine and court costs, with attendant imprisonment in default of payment, violates an indigеnt defendant‘s right to equal protection of the law. The defendant further claims that the portion of the sentence imposing a fine and court costs is unconstitutionally excessive.
As a preliminary matter we note the state‘s contention that the defendant‘s equаl protection argument is premature. However, finding no merit in defendant‘s claims, we do not address the prematurity issue. We affirm.
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 1
Appellate counsel asserts that the imposition of a $500 fine and court costs upon an indigent defendant constitutes a denial of due process and equal protection of law, citing Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970), Morris v. Schoenfield, 399 U.S. 508, 90 S.Ct. 2232, 26 L.Ed.2d 130 (1970) and Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395, 91 S.Ct. 668, 28 L.Ed.2d 130 (1971). The defendant‘s contention is not well founded. These cases do not hold that аn indigent defendant may not be imprisoned in default of the payment of a fine. Williams v. Illinois, supra, rather holds it is a denial of equal protection when thе aggregate imprisonment of an indigent defendant exceeds the statutory maximum and results directly from an involuntary nonpayment of court costs. 399 U.S. at 243, 90 S.Ct. at 2023. Tate v. Short, supra, held it was invidious discrimination to imprison an indigent defendant on account of nonpayment of fines for offenses that are оtherwise punishable by fines only. See also State v. Williams, 288 So.2d 319 (La. 1974) and State v. Lukefahr, 363 So.2d 661 (La. 1978).
The defendant was charged with selling marijuana to an undercover agent on April 9, 1984. He plеd guilty to attempted distribution of marijuana. The penalty for attempted violation of
ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR NO. 2
The defendant asserts that the portion of his sentence imposing a $500 fine and court costs is unconstitutionally excessive. In default of the payment of the fine and court costs, the trial court imposed 90 days imprisonment. The imposition of a sеntence in default of paying a fine is statutorily authorized. See
The sentencing guidelines of
In sentencing the defendant, the trial judge noted the seriousness of the offense and the defendant‘s extensive criminal record. Although defendant pled guilty to attempted distribution оf marijuana, the evidence would have supported a conviction for distribution of marijuana. This factor is a legitimate point for consideration in reviewing a sentence. Cf. State v. Taylor, 430 So.2d 686 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1983), writ denied 438 So.2d 575 (1983). The defendant could have received as much as ten years at hard labor and finе of up to $15,000 on the offense he was originally charged with. Consequently, the defendant received a substantial benefit when the state аllowed him to plead to a lesser offense. The trial court also noted that the defendant is not legally eligible for probation. The maximum fine imposable under the statute was $7,500; however, in imposing a $500 fine, the trial court adverted to the small amount of money involved and the defendant‘s lack of drug-related convictions in the last several years. Considering the serious nature of the offense and the defendant‘s prior criminal record, we cannot find that the imposition of a $500 fine and court costs or imprisonment for 90 days in default of payment in addition to the three year hard labor sentence on this defendant constitutes a constitutionally excessive sentence. Accordingly the defendant‘s sentence is affirmed.
AFFIRMED.