Facts
In September 1980 petitioner pleader guilty for burglary, yet the Georgian trial court did not sentence the applicant and sentenced them to probation if he pays a 500$ fine. However, the petitioner managed to pay only 200$ and could not provide the rest due to being fired (FindLaw). Because he informed the probation office, the trial court decided to sentence him because of non-payment. The Georgia Court of Appeals rejected his attempts to prove that penalizing him due to his inability to pay restitution is illegal according to the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Issue
The issue of the case concerns the Fourteenth Amendment’s capability to prohibit the state from revoking the probation of a petitioner who is unable to pay a fine and restitution (FindLaw). The court decides whether the defendant falls under the category of those eligible for sentencing due to non-payment.
Holding
The trial court erred in revoking the probation since they did not determine the causes of such noncompliance. Thus, the court took into consideration the petitioner’s background and indicated that nor the defendant nor his wife attempted to find a job to pay the rest of the fine (FindLaw). Finally, the court held independent expertise related to the causes of his neglecting the order and sentenced the burglar.
Rationale
The court had to reject extending the time for making a payment since the burglar disobeyed the order. It means that the defendant knew he needed to pay 500$ but never complied with the law. As a result, the court realized that the petitioner condemned the prior court order. The fine was turned into imprisonment because they found out the substantial reasons for non-payment.
Work Cited
“Bearden v. Georgia (1983)”. FindLaw. Web.