Me. Rev. Stat. » Title 17-A
Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1302 (2026)

Criteria for imposing fines

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(REPEALED)
SECTION HISTORY
PL 1975, c. 499, §1 (NEW). PL 1993, c. 103, §4 (AMD). PL 1999, c. 367, §3 (RPR). PL 2003, c. 143, §11 (AMD). PL 2015, c. 436, §9 (AMD). PL 2019, c. 113, Pt. A, §1 (RP).
The Revisor's Office cannot provide legal advice or interpretation of Maine law to the public.
If you need legal advice, please consult a qualified attorney.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1981–2012 · leading case: Colson v. State, 498 A.2d 585 (Me. 1985).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colson v. State, 498 A.2d 585 (Me. 1985). · cites it 4× “At the post-conviction proceeding and at oral argument before us, Colson, through his appointed counsel, expressly waived two issues: (1) whether the District Court correctly inquired of his ability to pay the fine when originally imposed as mandated by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1302…”
State v. Pelletier, 434 A.2d 52 (Me. 1981). · cites it 2× “We do note the absence in the record of any indication that the court determined Pelletier’s ability to pay a fine before imposing sentence, as required by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1302. 4 The defendant, however, did not object at the sentencing hearing to the court’s failure expressly…”
Colson v. Joyce, 646 F. Supp. 102 (D. Me. 1986). “Petitioner, through appointed counsel, has expressly waived two issues: (1) whether the District Court correctly inquired of his ability to pay the fine when originally imposed, as mandated by 17-A M.R.S.A. § 1302, (1983); and (2) whether his default in payment of the fine was…”
State v. Harrell, 2012 ME 82 (Me. 2012). “When no mandatory fine is prescribed the court must “take into account the present and future financial capacity of the offender to pay the fíne and the nature of the financial burden that payment of the fine will impose on the offender,” 17-A M.R.S. § 1302(1) (2011); State v.…”
Cyr v. Bd. of Licensing of Auctioneers (Me. Super. Ct 2010). · cites it 2× “The court disagrees that ability to pay is not a relevant factor to the imposition of tines or civil penalties? In the court's view, the logic of the Zegel case and the fact that ability to pay is generally considered to be relevant to the imposition of monetary sanctions, see,…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1302(1) — 2 cases
State v. Harrell, 2012 ME 82 (Me. 2012). “When no mandatory fine is prescribed the court must “take into account the present and future financial capacity of the offender to pay the fíne and the nature of the financial burden that payment of the fine will impose on the offender,” 17-A M.R.S. § 1302(1) (2011); State v.…”
Cyr v. Bd. of Licensing of Auctioneers (Me. Super. Ct 2010). “The court disagrees that ability to pay is not a relevant factor to the imposition of tines or civil penalties? In the court's view, the logic of the Zegel case and the fact that ability to pay is generally considered to be relevant to the imposition of monetary sanctions, see,…”
— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-A, § 1302(2) — 1 case
Cyr v. Bd. of Licensing of Auctioneers (Me. Super. Ct 2010). “The court disagrees that ability to pay is not a relevant factor to the imposition of tines or civil penalties? In the court's view, the logic of the Zegel case and the fact that ability to pay is generally considered to be relevant to the imposition of monetary sanctions, see,…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.