## Facts

- Danny R. Bearden pleaded guilty in a Georgia trial court to burglary and theft by receiving stolen property and was sentenced under Georgia’s First Offender Act.
- The trial court placed Bearden on probation without entering a judgment of guilt, conditioned on payment of a $500 fine and $250 restitution on a short schedule.
- Bearden borrowed money and paid the first $200, then was laid off and could not find new employment despite repeated efforts.
- Before the remaining $550 became due, Bearden notified the probation office that payment would be late.
- The State petitioned to revoke probation for nonpayment.
- At the revocation hearing, the record showed Bearden had no assets or income and had been unable to find work.
- The trial court nevertheless revoked probation, adjudicated guilt, and sentenced Bearden to imprisonment.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court of Georgia denied review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Fourteenth Amendment permits revoking probation and imprisoning an indigent defendant solely for failure to pay a fine and restitution, without inquiring into the reasons for nonpayment.
2. Whether a court must determine willfulness and consider alternatives to incarceration before converting unpaid monetary conditions of probation into imprisonment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- A court may not revoke probation for failure to pay a fine or restitution absent evidence and findings that the defendant was responsible for the failure or that alternatives were inadequate to serve punishment and deterrence.
- The trial court erred by automatically revoking probation and imposing imprisonment without determining whether nonpayment was willful and without considering other measures.

## Legal Principles

- Due process and equal protection principles jointly require “fundamental fairness” when the State seeks to imprison a person for nonpayment of criminal monetary obligations.
- Before revoking probation for nonpayment, the court must inquire into the reasons for nonpayment and make findings on ability to pay and efforts to obtain resources.
- Imprisonment is permissible if the defendant willfully refused to pay despite having the resources, or failed to make sufficient bona fide efforts to acquire resources legally (including seeking work or borrowing).
- If nonpayment results from inability to pay despite bona fide efforts, the court must consider alternative punishments (e.g., additional time to pay, adjusted payment terms, other probation conditions) and may incarcerate only if alternatives are inadequate to satisfy the State’s interests.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court held that revoking probation and imprisoning a defendant for nonpayment violates the Fourteenth Amendment unless the court finds willful nonpayment or determines, after considering alternatives, that incarceration is necessary to achieve the State’s punitive and deterrent aims.


Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660 (1983)