On Point blog, page 1 of 2
COA affirms orders denying return of property petition and imposing fine
State v. Andre L. Jones, 2023AP1535-CR, 2023AP1536-CR, 2023AP1537-CR and 2023AP1538-CR, 5/16/24, District IV(not recommended for publication); case activity
In a rare appeal of an order denying a motion for return of property, COA rejects a novel statutory construction argument by adhering to what it views as binding precedent.
Defense Win! COA holds that circuit court improperly required defendant to reimburse attorney fees related to dismissed case
State v. Aman Deep Singh, 2022AP1202-04, District I, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)
In a somewhat messy pro se appeal, the court of appeals agrees that the circuit court improperly required Singh to reimburse attorney’s fees but rejects his remaining claims.
SCOW will decide how multiple enhancers apply to OWI fines
State v. Charles L. Neill, IV, petition for review granted 6/11/19; 2018AP75; case activity (including briefs)
This is a review of a published court of appeals decision. Here’s the issue, as stated in our prior post:
Neill pleaded to an OWI-3rd, which has a minimum fine of $600. Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)3. His plea came with two statutory enhancers: the one for having a BAC over .25 (Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(g)3.), and the one for having a child in a car (§ 346.65(2)(f)2.). The former quadruples the minimum fine, and the latter doubles it. So, what’s the minimum fine?
COA holds, over dissent, that OWI fine enhancers enhance each other
State v. Charles L. Neill, IV, 2019 WI App 4; petition for review granted 6/11/19, reversed, 2020 WI 15; case activity (including briefs)
Neill pleaded to an OWI-3rd, which has a minimum fine of $600. Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)3. His plea came with two statutory enhancers: the one for having a BAC over .25 (Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(g)3.), and the one for having a child in a car (§ 346.65(2)(f)2.). The former quadruples the minimum fine, and the latter doubles it. So, what’s the minimum fine?
Challenge to collection of old fine fails
State v. Eric W. Poirier, 2017AP931-CR, District 3, 5/8/18 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Back in 2003, Poirier was fined $1,184 for an OWI conviction. He didn’t pay, so a judgment was entered against him. In 2017 the circuit court entered an order assigning income from his prison account to pay the judgment. He objects to the assignment order, but to no avail, due in large part to missteps common to pro se litigants.
Sentencing judge didn’t need to give separate reasons for imposing fine
State v. Robert P. Vesper, 2018 WI App 31; case activity (including briefs)
Vesper complains that when he was sentenced for his 7th OWI offense the judge didn’t give a separate explanation for why it was imposing a fine in addition to prison time. Over a dissent, the court of appeals concludes the judge said enough to satisfy the (not at all exacting) standard of review for exercise of sentencing discretion. The court also rejects Vesper’s claim that the judge didn’t assess his ability to pay the fine.
Graduating fees, fines, surcharges and restitution according to the severity of the crime and the defendant’s ability to pay
Who would’ve thunk? This is the subject of a hot new paper on the Social Science Research Network. You can read it here.
The statutes authorize fines for 7th and greater OWI offenses
State v. Michel L. Wortman, 2017 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs)
A glitch in the OWI penalty statute appears to suggest that OWI 7th and greater offenses don’t allow for a fine, but only for the imposition of the forfeiture provided for first-offense OWI. The court of appeals concludes otherwise. The court also rejects Wortman’s claim that he was under arrest when a sheriff’s deputy transported him back to the scene of the accident he was in.
Fines and forfeitures affirmed due to defendant’s failure to carry burden or proof
State v. Paul A. Adams, 2016AP1149, 5/31/17, District 2 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity
Adams, an inmate, objected to the garnishment of his prison wages to pay fines and forfeitures assessed in various traffic and OWI cases. The court of appeals rejected all of his claims because Adams, the moving party, bore the burden of proof but failed to offer any evidence that the amounts assessed were incorrect.
SCOTUS: How does a defendant recover costs, fees and restitution after his conviction is reversed?
Nelson v. Colorado, USSC No. 15-526, (April 20, 2017), reversing and remanding Colorado v. Nelson, 364 P.3d 866 (2015); SCOTUSblog page (inlcuding links to briefs and commentary).
This decision establishes that a State cannot force an exonerated defendant to file a civil suit and prove his innocence by clear and convincing evidence in order to recover costs, fees, and restitution he paid upon conviction.