Bearden v. Georgia
461 U.S. 660 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits a state from revoking an indigent person's probation for failure to pay a fine and restitution unless the court first determines that the individual did not make sufficient bona fide efforts to pay or that alternative forms of punishment are inadequate to meet the state's penological interests.
Facts:
- In 1980, Danny Bearden pleaded guilty to burglary and theft in Georgia.
- The court sentenced Bearden to probation, conditioned on him paying a $500 fine and $250 in restitution.
- Bearden borrowed money from his parents and paid the first $200.
- Shortly thereafter, Bearden was laid off from his job.
- Bearden, who has only a ninth-grade education and is illiterate, made repeated but unsuccessful efforts to find new employment.
- Before the balance was due, Bearden notified his probation officer that he was unemployed and would be unable to make the payment on time.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Bearden pleaded guilty to burglary and theft in a Georgia trial court and was sentenced to probation.
- The State of Georgia filed a petition in the trial court to revoke Bearden's probation for failure to pay the fine and restitution.
- The trial court granted the petition, revoked probation, and sentenced Bearden to serve the remainder of his probationary period in prison.
- Bearden, as appellant, appealed the revocation to the Georgia Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Georgia Supreme Court denied Bearden's petition for review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to hear the case.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment prohibit a state from automatically revoking an indigent defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine and restitution, without first inquiring into the reasons for the failure to pay and considering alternative forms of punishment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice O'Connor
Yes. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the automatic revocation of probation for failure to pay a fine without considering the reasons for nonpayment. If a probationer has made sufficient bona fide efforts to pay but cannot due to indigency, it is fundamentally unfair to imprison them without first considering whether adequate alternative methods of punishment exist. Revoking probation is justified if the probationer willfully refused to pay or failed to make bona fide efforts to acquire the resources to do so. However, for a probationer who tried in good faith, the court must consider alternatives such as extending the payment time, reducing the fine, or ordering public service. Imprisonment is only permissible if these alternative measures are found inadequate to meet the state's interests in punishment and deterrence.
Concurring - Justice White
Yes. While the Constitution does not prevent a court from imprisoning a probationer for failure to pay a fine, the revocation cannot result in an automatic, lengthy prison sentence that is not a rational equivalent to the financial penalty. Poverty does not insulate a person from punishment, and a court can impose a jail term if it makes a good-faith effort to ensure the sentence is 'roughly equivalent' to the fine that was not paid. The majority's novel requirement to first consider alternative punishments is not supported by precedent. However, because the long prison term imposed in this case was not a rational and necessary trade-off for the unpaid fine, the judgment to reverse is correct.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the constitutional limits on punishing indigent defendants, extending the principles of Williams v. Illinois and Tate v. Short to the context of probation revocation. It establishes a crucial due process requirement for sentencing courts to inquire into the reasons for a probationer's failure to pay a fine before revoking their conditional liberty. The ruling prevents the automatic conversion of a financial penalty into a prison sentence solely due to poverty, forcing courts to explore less restrictive alternatives. This creates a procedural safeguard that balances the state's interest in punishment with the fundamental fairness owed to defendants who lack financial resources through no fault of their own.
