Commonwealth v. Belle, S.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that informing the defendant that he may be required to reimburse the State for the costs of his attorney did not \chill\ his right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment
• concluding that Oregon’s recoupment statute requiring defendants convicted of criminal offense to repay legal defense costs if person subsequently acquires means to bear these costs does not “chill” constitutional right to counsel
• holding that, provided there are sufficient due process safeguards in place, statutory schemes that require a convicted defendant to reimburse state actors for work undertaken due to his or her own wrongdoing do not offend the constitution
• concluding Oregon’s statute was “a far cry from the kind of invidious discrimination that the Equal Protection Clause condemns”
• upholding Oregon recoupment statute providing that an indigent convicted person, who later becomes able to pay for his counsel, may be required to do so
• requiring the trial court to make specific findings before revoking a defendant’s probation for failure to pay costs

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).