Could a South Carolina municipal court jail someone for an unpaid fine without a new hearing?

Short answer The AG said a municipal judge could condition a suspended sentence on payment of a fine and could use a bench warrant to bring back someone who willfully failed to pay. The warrant alone did not authorize imprisonment for contempt; a hearing was required. The letter also said a person who made reasonable efforts but could not pay could not be jailed for inability alone.
State
South Carolina
Opinion
2001-june-5-2001
Issued
June 5, 2001
Issued by
Office of the South Carolina Attorney General
Requested by
H. Spencer King, Esq.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2001. Ask about yours and see what current South Carolina law means for your facts, with citations you can check.

Disclaimer: This is an official South Carolina Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed South Carolina attorney for advice on your specific situation.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

A Spartanburg city attorney asked what a municipal judge could do when a defendant did not pay a fine: impose confinement, issue a bench warrant, or hold a new contempt hearing. The June 2001 informal opinion said municipal judges had authority to suspend a sentence on payment terms and, in a sentence offering fine or imprisonment, confine a person who did not pay subject to the rules on proportional credit for time served.

For willful nonpayment, the AG said a bench warrant could bring the defendant back before the court. It was a process for returning the defendant, not itself a new sentence. Imprisonment for contempt required a hearing. The letter also distinguished a defendant who made reasonable efforts to pay but was financially unable: inability alone did not justify imprisonment.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2001. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Municipal judges and clerks

The opinion said municipal judges could suspend sentences on payment conditions and issue a bench warrant for a willful failure to comply. It said any contempt imprisonment after return to court required a hearing.

Defendants with unpaid fines

The letter described proportional treatment when a person served part of an alternative jail sentence and paid part of the fine. It also said reasonable efforts coupled with inability to pay could not alone support jail time.

Common questions

Could a bench warrant itself put the person in jail for contempt? A: No. The AG said it brought the person before the court; imprisonment for contempt required a hearing.

Could a judge suspend a sentence on condition that a fine be paid? A: Yes. The letter said municipal judges had that sentencing authority, but no authority to place a person on probation.

What if the person genuinely could not pay?
A: The opinion said reasonable payment efforts followed by financial inability could not, by itself, justify imprisonment.

Background and statutory framework

The letter discussed municipal court sentencing powers, S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-360 on payment of a proportionate part of an alternative fine, and S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-350 on payment schedules for indigent defendants. It cited the South Carolina Bench Book for the function of a bench warrant.

Citations and references

  • S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-360: fine and imprisonment in the alternative.
  • S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-350: payment schedules and contempt limits.

Official title

Regarding the sentencing authority of municipal court judges.

Requester

H. Spencer King, Esq.

Source

Original opinion text

..

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHARLIE CONDON
AITORNEY GENERAL

June 5, 2001

H. Spencer King, Esq.
Spartanburg City Attorney
P.O. Drawer 3188
Spartanburg, SC 29304-'3 l 88
Dear Mr. King:
Your Jetter of February 26, 2001 was referred to me for response. Your correspondence raised questions regarding the sentencing authority of municipal court judges. Specifically, you posited the following:
[M]ay a municipal court judge sentence a defendant to only a monetary fine with no confinement and then order confinement until the fine is paid? Further, if a fine is ordered and the defendant released, and the fine not paid, can the defendant be picked up on a bench warrant and confined, or does there have to be a new hearing holding the defendant in contempt?

I

Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann.§ 14-25-45, municipal court judges" ... shall ... have all such powers, duties and jurisdiction in criminal cases made under state Jaw and conferred upon magistrates." Under S.C. Code Ann. § 22-3-800, a magistrate, "may suspend the imposition or execution of a sentence upon terms and conditions the magistrate considers appropriate .... " Therefore, a municipal court judge may suspend a sentence upon the payment of a fine, and then order confinement as part of the suspended sentence when the fine has not been paid. Such authority can also be found in S.C. Code Ann.§ 14-25-75 which allows a municipal judge to "suspend sentences imposed by him upon such terms and conditions as he deems proper. ... " However, municipal court judges do not have the authority to place anyone on probation. See S.C. Code Ann. §§ 14-25-45, 22-3-800. S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-360 allows someone who has been sentenced in the alternative, by fine or imprisonment, to "pay such part of the fine as shall be in proportion to the balance of the time to be served under the sentence." This section further provides that "upon the payment of such proportionate part of the fine, the clerk, judge, magistrate, mayor or intendant shall release and

REMBERT

c. DENNIS BUILDING

•

POST OFF!CE Box 11549

•

COLUMBIA,

s.c. 29211-1549

•

'TELEPHONE; 803-734-3970

•

FAcs!MlLE; 803-253-6283

.
H. Spencer King, Esq.
June 5, 2001
Page 2

I

L.

~

discharge the person in behalf of whom the fine is so paid from further custody." Therefore, if the defendant is sentenced in the alternative, he may be confined until the fine is paid, but if the defendant should pay the fine, the time in which he has served in jail must be taken into consideration in determining how much of the fine is left to be paid. Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. § 17-25-350 allows magistrates to structure payment schedules for the satisfaction of fines if a defendant is indigent. This section also states that "[f]ailure to comply with the payment schedule shall constitute contempt of court; however, imprisonment for contempt may not exceed the amount of time of the original sentence, and where part of the fine has been paid the imprisonment cannot exceed the remaining pro rata portion of the sentence." These sections illustrate instances where a defendant may pay part of the fine and serve part of the jail term. A person sentenced in the alternative must either pay the entire fine or serve the entire sentence, unless the situation is one in which§ 17-25-350 or§ 17-25-360 is appropriate. See Op. Any,_ Gen., December 29, 1982. An individual, however, who has made reasonable efforts to pay his fine, but is financially unable to pay, may not be imprisoned for that reason alone. See Op. A!!Y,. Gen., November 30, 1987.

I

I
I

Where a defendant willfully fails or refuses to pay a fine or otherwise comply with a sentence, a bench warrant is the appropriate form of process to bring the defendant back into court to comply with the imposed sentence. South Carolina Bench Book for Magistrates and Municipal Court Judges, III-17 (2"d Edition, 2000). Furthermore, the failure to pay money in compliance with an order of the court may also constitute contempt of court. See Op. Any. Gen., April 21, 1995. The bench warrant is not an "arrest warrant per se," Op. Any,_ Gen., October 31, 1978, but is rather used as a form of process to "bring a defendant back on a particular charge for a specific purpose after the court has acquired jurisdiction over the defendant on that particular charge .... " Bench Book at III-16. Therefore, a bench warrant would be appropriate to bring the defendant before the court for purposes of a contempt hearing on the underlying charge. Any term of imprisonment imposed by the municipal judge in such an instance, could not be imposed absent such a hearing. I hope the information provided herein proves helpful. This letter is an informal opinion only. It has been written by a designated Assistant Attorney General and represents the position of the undersigned attorney as to the specific question asked. It has not, however, been personally scrutinized by the Attorney General, nor officially published in the manner of a formal opinion.

21y~
--a~vid K.

Avant
Assistant Attorney General

What does South Carolina law say today, for your facts?

This opinion is from 2001. Ezel checks the current South Carolina statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace