State of Pohnpei v.Amok

POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS

VOL. 1

[1 P. S. Ct. R 204]

STATE OF POHNPEI,

Plaintiff

ANDREAS AMOK,

Defendant

Pohnpei Criminal Case No. 44-85

Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court

July 23, 1985

Defendant having defaulted in payment of the fine imposed as a penalty for an offense, he was brought before the Court pursuant to a bench warrant. No alternative sentence was set at the time of sentencing. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice, held that as no alternative sentence was set at the time of sentencing, the Court had discretion to enforce the sentence in any manner it deemed justice required.

1. Criminal Law - Sentencing - Enforcement

[1 P. S. Ct. R 205]

Where the Court imposes a fine as a penalty upon the defendant without setting any alternative sentence at the time of sentencing and the defendant defaults in the payment of the fine, the Court has discretion to enforce that sentence in any manner it deems justice requires.

2. Criminal Law - Sentencing - Common Law

The common law position that where a judgment does not specify that failure by the defendant to pay a fine imposed will subject him to imprisonment, and that a subsequent order of the court to that effect is unauthorized and void, no longer applies in this jurisdiction in view of Chapter 9, Section 9-5 of the Pohnpei Crimes Act of 1985 providing for the enforcement of sentences of fine in this State.

Counsel for Plaintiff: Herold Henry

Counsel for Defendant: Ignacio Soumwei

JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice

The defendant is brought before me pursuant to the Bench Warrant which was issued on July 22, 1985.

[1] I find that the defendant is defaulted in payment of the fine of $15.00, imposed as penalty upon him in this matter on January 24, 1985. As no alternative sentence was set at time of sentencing, this Court has discretion to enforce that sentence in any manner it deems justice requires. Pohnpei State v. Bob Hadley, PKD 173-84. In Hadley, this Court stated in the last sentence of the third paragraph of its opinion,

"where a judgment does not specify that failure by the defendant to pay the fine imposed will subject him to imprisonment, a subsequent order of the court to that

[1 P. S. Ct. R 206]

effect is unauthorized and void."

[2] It is important that that portion of the opinion is clarified as it may serve to confuse existing statutes. Mention of the procedure was made in the discussion of common-law applications. That portion of the opinion no longer applies in this jurisdiction in view of Chapter 9, Section 9-5 of the Pohnpei Crimes Act of 1985, providing for the enforcement of sentences of fine in this State.

Having that discretion, I consider it in the interest of justice to suspend the grace period as originally imposed but require payment of the fine of $15.00 no later than this date - July 23, 1985.

It is so ORDERED.


	POHNPEI SUPREME COURT REPORTS VOL. 1 [1 P. S. Ct. R 204] STATE OF POHNPEI, Plaintiff v. ANDREAS AMOK, Defendant Pohnpei Criminal Case No. 44-85 Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court July 23, 1985 Defendant having defaulted in payment of the fine imposed as a penalty for an offense, he was brought before the Court pursuant to a bench warrant. No alternative sentence was set at the time of sentencing. The Trial Division of the Pohnpei Supreme Court, JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice, held that as no alternative sentence was set at the time of sentencing, the Court had discretion to enforce the sentence in any manner it deemed justice required. 1. Criminal Law - Sentencing - Enforcement [1 P. S. Ct. R 205] Where the Court imposes a fine as a penalty upon the defendant without setting any alternative sentence at the time of sentencing and the defendant defaults in the payment of the fine, the Court has discretion to enforce that sentence in any manner it deems justice requires. 2. Criminal Law - Sentencing - Common Law The common law position that where a judgment does not specify that failure by the defendant to pay a fine imposed will subject him to imprisonment, and that a subsequent order of the court to that effect is unauthorized and void, no longer applies in this jurisdiction in view of Chapter 9, Section 9-5 of the Pohnpei Crimes Act of 1985 providing for the enforcement of sentences of fine in this State. Counsel for Plaintiff: Herold Henry Counsel for Defendant: Ignacio Soumwei JUDAH C. JOHNNY, Associate Justice The defendant is brought before me pursuant to the Bench Warrant which was issued on July 22, 1985. [1] I find that the defendant is defaulted in payment of the fine of $15.00, imposed as penalty upon him in this matter on January 24, 1985. As no alternative sentence was set at time of sentencing, this Court has discretion to enforce that sentence in any manner it deems justice requires. Pohnpei State v. Bob Hadley, PKD 173-84. In Hadley, this Court stated in the last sentence of the third paragraph of its opinion, "where a judgment does not specify that failure by the defendant to pay the fine imposed will subject him to imprisonment, a subsequent order of the court to that [1 P. S. Ct. R 206] effect is unauthorized and void." [2] It is important that that portion of the opinion is clarified as it may serve to confuse existing statutes. Mention of the procedure was made in the discussion of common-law applications. That portion of the opinion no longer applies in this jurisdiction in view of Chapter 9, Section 9-5 of the Pohnpei Crimes Act of 1985, providing for the enforcement of sentences of fine in this State. Having that discretion, I consider it in the interest of justice to suspend the grace period as originally imposed but require payment of the fine of $15.00 no later than this date - July 23, 1985. It is so ORDERED.