Williams v. Illinois
| Williams v. Illinois | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 22, 1970 Decided June 29, 1970 | |
| Full case name | Williams v. Illinois |
| Citations | 399 U.S. 235 (more) 90 S. Ct. 2018; 26 L. Ed. 2d 586 |
| Holding | |
| If a person cannot afford to pay a fine, it violates equal protection to convert that unpaid fines into jail time to extend a person's incarceration beyond a statutory maximum length. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Burger, joined by Black, Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, White, Marshall, Blackmun |
| Concurrence | Harlan |
Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that, if a person cannot afford to pay a fine, it violates the Equal Protection Clause to convert that unpaid fine into jail time to extend a person's incarceration beyond a statutory maximum length.[1]
The syllabus of the case stated:
Appellant was given the maximum sentence for petty theft under Illinois law of one year' imprisonment and a $500 fine, plus $5 in court costs. The judgment, as permitted by statute, provided that, if, when the one-year sentence expired, he did not pay the monetary obligation, he had to remain in jail to work them off at the rate of $5 a day. While in jail, appellant, alleging indigency, unsuccessfully petitioned the sentencing judge to vacate that portion of the order confining him to jail after the sentence expired, because of nonpayment of the fine and cost. The Illinois Supreme Court rejected appellant's claim that the State statutory provision constituted discriminatory treatment against those unable to pay a fine and court costs, and affirmed the lower court's dismissal of appellant's petition, holding that "there is no denial of equal protection of the law when an indigent defendant is imprisoned to satisfy payment of the fine". Held: Though a State has considerable latitude in fixing the punishment for state crime, and may impose alternative sanction, it may not, under the Equal Protection Clause, subject a certain class of convicted defendants to a period of Imprisonment beyond the statutory maximum solely by reason of their indigency. Pp. 399 U. S. 239-245. 41 Ill. 2d 511, 244 N.E.2d 197, vacated and remanded.
A companion case, Morris v. Schoonfield,[2] was "remanded for reconsideration in light of intervening Maryland legislation and decision in Williams".
See also
[edit]- Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983)
- Tate v. Short, 401 U.S. 395 (1971)
References
[edit]External links
[edit]- Text of Williams v. Illinois, 399 U.S. 235 (1970) is available from: Cornell CourtListener Findlaw Justia Library of Congress Oyez (oral argument audio)
 | This article related to the Supreme Court of the United States is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |