On Point blog, page 1 of 1
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.
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.
Fines – Exercise of Discretion – Articulation of Sentencing Objectives and Determination of Ability to Pay
State v. Ahern Ramel, 2007 WI App 271
For Ramel: Wm. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶14 A fine that an offender has the ability to pay may satisfy sentencing objectives the trial court has found to be material and relevant to the particular defendant. See id. Here, however, with no explanation from the sentencing court of how the fine imposed advanced those objectives,
Fines – Ability to Pay – Determination
State v. Bruce J. Kuechler, 2003 WI App 245
For Kuechler: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶13. Fourth, Kuechler contends that the trial court imposed the fine without first ascertaining his ability to pay. We agree. Because Kuechler timely raised the issue of ability to pay in his postconviction motion, the trial court had a duty to make a determination on that issue.