Legal Opinion
In Re Antazo
California Supreme Court
Decided September 3, 1970No. Crim. 13857PublishedCited by 172 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
SULLIVAN, Acting C. J.
— We are confronted here with the question whether a convicted indigent defendant upon being sentenced or otherwise ordered to pay a fine and a penalty assessment can be required to serve them out in jail at a specified rate per day because he is unable to pay them. As we explain infra, such a defendant has no choice at all and in reality is being imprisoned for his poverty, Although a direction for confinement for default in payment of a fine may appear to apply equally to both the rich offender and the poor one, actually the former has the *104opportunity to escape…
2Cases cited66 opinions
- Anders v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- Griffin v. IllinoisSupreme Court of the United States · 1956
- McGowan v. MarylandSupreme Court of the United States · 1961
- Douglas v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1963
- Shapiro v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1969
61 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by172 opinions
- Bearden v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
- People v. Dueñas, California Court of Appeal, 5th District2019
- Serrano v. PriestCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- Bixby v. PiernoCalifornia Supreme Court · 1971
- People v. JacksonCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
167 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.