State v. PlaisanceState v. Plaisance
Defendant pled guilty to simple robbery, a violation of
Defendant appealed and assigns as error the imposition of an excessive sentence.
We affirm, as amended.
The trial court imposed the maximum sentence of imprisonment as well as the maximum fine. The court also imposed an additional sentence in the event of default in payment of the fine. Defendant argues that since he is indigent and will not be able to make payment, he will be imprisoned beyond the maximum limit allowed by statute. Defendant‘s assignment of error has merit.
In the case of an indigent defendant, it is impermissible to impose a prison term in lieu of payment of a fine that would result in the defendant serving a longer term than the statutory maximum for the offense. Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235, 90 S.Ct. 2018, 26 L.Ed.2d 586 (1970); State v. Williams, 288 So.2d 319 (La.1974); State v. Young, 432 So.2d 1012 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983); State v. Hernandez, 432 So.2d 350 (La.App. 1st Cir.1983).
We must therefore vacate the fine portion of defendant‘s sentence.
For the foregoing reasons, that portion of defendant‘s sentence which required him to pay a $3,000.00 fine or serve an additional year in default thereof, is vacated. In all other respects, defendant‘s sentence and conviction are affirmed.
AFFIRMED, AS AMENDED.