Ark. Code Ann. § 16-13-703 (2026)
Imprisonment
- When a defendant sentenced to pay a fine defaults in the payment thereof, or of any installment, the court, upon its own motion or that of the prosecuting attorney, may require him or her to show cause why he or she should not be imprisoned for nonpayment.
- The court may issue a warrant of arrest or summons for his or her appearance.
-
- Unless the defendant shows that his or her default was not attributable to a purposeful refusal to obey the sentence of the court or to a failure on his or her part to make a good-faith effort to obtain the funds required for payment, the court may order the defendant imprisoned in the county jail or other authorized institution designated by the court until the fine or specified part thereof is paid.
-
- The period of imprisonment shall not exceed one (1) day for each forty dollars ($40.00) of the fine, thirty (30) days if the fine was imposed upon conviction of a misdemeanor, or one (1) year if the fine was imposed upon conviction of a felony, whichever is the shorter period.
- The total amount of fines owed shall not automatically be reduced by the period of imprisonment, but the court may credit forty dollars ($40.00) for each day of imprisonment against the total fine, excluding any amount owed for restitution, the defendant has been sentenced to pay.
- This subsection is in addition to the revocation options contained in § 16-93-308.
- If the court determines that the default in payment of the fine is not attributable to the causes specified in subsection (c) of this section, the court may enter an order allowing the defendant additional time for payment, reducing the amount of each installment, or revoking the fine or the unpaid portion thereof in whole or in part.
History. Acts 1995, No. 1262, § 4; 2003, No. 1765, § 9; 2013, No. 225, § 1.
Amendments. The 2013 amendment inserted “excluding any amount owed for restitution” in (c)(2)(B); and rewrote (c)(3).
Research References
Ark. L. Rev.
Bryan Altman, Comment: Improving the Indigent Defense Crisis Through Decriminalization, 70 Ark. L. Rev. 769 (2017).
Case Notes
Improper Judicial Conduct.
Finding that the judge be removed from office was appropriate, in part because he had contact with probationers when he collected money and such conduct did not pass the test for appearance of impropriety nor did this section cure the appearance of impropriety. A circuit court was not authorized to collect the fine itself and it was clear that the judge's collection of money from defendants in open court would create in reasonable minds a perception that his ability to carry out his judicial responsibilities with integrity, impartiality, and competence was impaired. Ark. Judicial Discipline and Disability Comm'n v. Proctor, 2010 Ark. 38, 360 S.W.3d 61, cert. denied, isability Comm'n, 561 U.S. 1027, 130 S. Ct. 3516, 177 L. Ed. 2d 1093 (2010).
Right to Appeal.
City could not rely on the application of this section to claim that defendants' appeal had to be dismissed for the failure of defendants to pay an appeal bond because, even though this section authorizes imprisonment for failure to pay a fine, nothing in it authorizes a district court to demand payment of the fine as a prerequisite for taking an appeal to circuit court. Velek v. State, 364 Ark. 531, 222 S.W.3d 182 (2006).