Relief from Monetary Obligations Aside from Waiver

Not all types of relief from a criminal monetary obligation trigger the statutory requirements for notice, hearing, and findings. The process for waiving court costs is more complicated than it used to be. In 2011 the legislature introduced a requirement (discussed here) for the court to make written findings of “just cause” in support of any cost waiver. Last year, it added a requirement (discussed here) that the court give written notice and an opportunity to heard to any directly affected party before waiving or remitting a cost or fine. I won’t get into the details again today, but suffice it to say there’s some red tape. One thing I have stressed on this blog and elsewhere is that there are many different types of criminal monetary obligations. “Costs” are one type, but there are also fines, attorney fees, restitution, and other fees. The technical requirements for waiver apply only to true costs—those obligations set out in G.S. 7A-304(a) or incorporated by reference therein. So, you have to be precise about the obligation in question when determining what the court must do to offer relief from it. That can be complicated, but unfortunately, that's the easy part. Not only are there different categories of monetary obligations, there are also different statutory avenues for relieving defendants of the requirement to pay them. Those avenues include things like “remitting,” “exempting,” and “revoking” various obligations. And then there are some obligations that are truly discretionary, and thus require no justification or process whatsoever when [...]