UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
ROBERT WALTERS, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The imposition of a greater fine after a defendant elects to stand trial does not violate constitutional rights.
Defendant received a traffic violation notice with an option to pay a fine or go to trial. He chose trial, was found guilty, and received a higher fin…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Right To Trial cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Defendant was issued a violation notice at Washington National Airport charging him with a traffic violation. He was given the option of paying a fine of twenty-five dollars or appearing in court. Defendant elected to stand trial, and was tried by the district court. The judge, sitting without a jury, found the defendant guilty and imposed a fine of fifty dollars. Defendant appealed. We affirm.
Defendant complains that the imposition of the fifty-dollar fine, double the initial fine defendant could have paid if he had not stood trial, penalized him for exercising his right to a trial, and thus denied him his constitutional rights under the fifth and sixth amendments. We disagree.
In Colton v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104, 92 S.Ct. 1953, 32 L.Ed.2d 584 (1972), the Supreme Court upheld the two-tier lower judiciary system of Kentucky, even though a harsher sentence could be imposed after a trial de novo. We hold that the rationale of Colton applies to the case at bar, and that the imposition of a greater fine as a result of defendant’s trial did not violate his constitutional rights under either the fifth or sixth amendments.