Supreme Court of the United States
Fuller v. Oregon
May 20, 1974417 U.S. 40
Summary
The Court upheld Oregon's recoupment statute, which permits the State to recover appointed-counsel expenses from convicted defendants who later become able to pay without hardship. The statute did not violate equal protection because it preserved ordinary protections for judgment debtors and rationally limited repayment to defendants ultimately convicted. It also did not impermissibly chill the right to counsel because indigent defendants remain entitled to counsel when needed and repayment is required only upon later ability to pay without manifest hardship. Justice Marshall, dissenting, would have invalidated the statute insofar as repayment could be made a condition of probation, while Justice Douglas concurred in the judgment without reaching that equal-protection theory.
Holding
- Equal protection. Oregon's recoupment statute does not violate equal protection. It does not deny indigent defendants the exemptions available to other civil judgment debtors, and the distinction between defendants who are ultimately convicted and those who are acquitted, whose cases end in dismissal or mistrial, or whose convictions are reversed is rational rather than invidious.
- Right to appointed counsel. The recoupment statute does not unconstitutionally burden the right to counsel. The possibility of later repayment does not deny an indigent defendant eligibility for appointed counsel or impermissibly chill acceptance of counsel when repayment is limited to persons who later become able to pay without hardship.
Docket 73-5280
Cited authorities
- Kan. Stat. Ann. § 22-4513
- 67 Mich. L. Rev. 1404
- 59 Geo. L.J. 991