No. 24-55

Montana v. Robert Murray Gibbons

Lower Court: Montana
Docketed: 2024-07-18
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: eighth-amendment excessive-fines-clause financial-burden financial-circumstances mandatory-fine mandatory-fines proportionality proportionality-factors sentencing sentencing-discretion
Key Terms:
DueProcess Punishment Jurisdiction JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2024-09-30
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether the Excessive Fines Clause requires the sentencing judge to consider a defendant's personal financial circumstances and the nature of the burden that payment of the fine will impose before imposing a mandatory fine

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION PRESENTED In sentencing a defendant for his tenth conviction for driving under the influence of alcohol, the sentencing judge opted to impose a fine as part of that sentence. The applicable statute authorized fines between $5,000 and $10,000. Based on the relevant facts of the defendant’s latest conviction, the judge imposed the statutory minimum fine of $5,000. But the defendant, a person of limited means, claimed that the sentencing statute was facially unconstitutional. Finding that the statute requires a sentencing judge to impose a mandatory fine in every case without “first considering constitutionally required proportionality factors, such as the nature of the financial burden and the defendant’s ability to pay,” Pet.App.3a, 92, the Montana Supreme Court agreed and held that the statute facially violates the Eighth Amendment’s Excessive Fines Clause. The question presented is: Whether the Excessive Fines Clause requires the sentencing judge to consider a defendant’s personal financial circumstances and the nature of the burden that payment of the fine will impose before imposing a mandatory fine. ii STATEMENT OF

Docket Entries

2024-10-07
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent GRANTED.
2024-10-07
Petition DENIED.
2024-09-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/30/2024.
2024-09-09
2024-09-09
2024-08-28
Motion of Robert Murray Gibbons for leave to proceed in forma pauperis submitted.
2024-08-28
Brief of Robert Murray Gibbons in opposition submitted.
2024-08-28
Brief of respondent Robert Murray Gibbons in opposition filed.
2024-08-28
Motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by respondent Robert Murray Gibbons.
2024-07-23
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including August 28, 2024.
2024-07-22
Motion of Robert Murray Gibbons for an extension of time submitted.
2024-07-22
Motion to extend the time to file a response from August 19, 2024 to August 28, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2024-07-15
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 19, 2024)
2024-05-07
Application (23A989) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from June 18, 2024 to July 17, 2024, submitted to Justice Kagan.
2024-05-03
Application (23A989) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until July 17, 2024.

Attorneys

Montana
Peter Martin Torstensen Jr.Montana Attorney General's Office, Petitioner
Peter Martin Torstensen Jr.Montana Attorney General's Office, Petitioner
Robert Murray Gibbons
Jeffrey L. FisherO'Melveny & Myers LLP, Respondent
Jeffrey L. FisherO'Melveny & Myers LLP, Respondent