Judges: DUSTIN McDANIEL, Attorney General
Filed Date: 12/2/2009
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
The Honorable Steve Faris State Senator
29476 Highway 67 Malvern, Arkansas 72104-6833
Dear Senator Faris:
I am writing in response to your request for an opinion concerning A.C.A. §
In addition to all fines now or as may hereafter be provided by law, the quorum court of each county may by ordinance levy an additional fine not to exceed twenty dollars ($20.00) to be collected from each defendant upon each conviction, each plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or each bond forfeiture in all cases in the first and second class of accounting records as described in Section 16-17-707. A county ordinance enacted under this subdivision (b)(1) applies to all district courts in the county.
A.C.A. §
As you note, A.C.A. §
With this background in mind, you ask:
1. Does this have the net effect that cases on the "city docket" — cases charged and prosecuted by a city or municipality as opposed to the county — will have imposed the additional $20.00 city jail fine and the additional $20.00 county jail fine? [Emphasis original.]
2. If so, will those defendants essentially be hit with the jail fine twice?
3. Further, §
16-17-129 consistently uses the language "not to exceed twenty dollars ($20.00)." Does this language mean that, if a city or county passes an ordinance under this statute, it must be the specific amount of $20.00 — no more or no less — or would it be permissible to pass an ordinance under this Code section in an amount less than $20.00?
In response to your second question, defendants in city-docketed cases will be subject in that instance to two fines under A.C.A. §
I believe it is clear in response to your final question that the fine may be set in an amount less than $20.00. This conclusion follows from the plain language of the statute. See generallyWilcox v. Safley,
The basic rule of statutory construction is to give effect to the intent of the legislature. Central Southern Companies, Inc. v. Weiss,
339 Ark. 76 ,3 S.W.3d 294 (1999). When the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, legislative intent is determined from the ordinary meaning of the language used. Id. In considering the meaning of a statute it is construed just as it reads, giving words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Id.
See also Manning v. State,
By providing that the additional fine under A.C.A. §
Deputy Attorney General Elisabeth A. Walker prepared the foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve.
Sincerely,
DUSTIN McDANIEL Attorney General
DM:EAW/cyh
In addition to all fines now or as may hereafter be provided by law, the governing body of each town or city in which a district court is located may by ordinance levy and collect an additional fine not to exceed twenty dollars ($20.00) from each defendant upon each conviction, each plea of guilty or nolo contendere, or each bond forfeiture in all cases in the first class of accounting records as described in §
16-17-707 .
*Page 1