On Point blog, page 1 of 1
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State v. Andre L. Jones, 2023AP1535-CR, 2023AP1536-CR, 2023AP1537-CR and 2023AP1538-CR, 5/16/24, District IV(not recommended for publication); case activity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.
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.
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 – Discretion to Impose
State v. Bruce J. Kuechler, 2003 WI App 245
For Kuechler: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶11. Second, Kuechler argues that “[e]ven if the size of the fine could be based exclusively on a guideline recommendation, the court here failed to give adequate reasons for choosing the more severe of two alternative guidelines.” We disagree. The court exercised appropriate discretion when it chose to impose a fine based on the guidelines that highlighted aggravating factors rather than on the guidelines that highlighted mitigating factors.
Review — Forfeiture — “Excessive Fines Clause”
State v. Kirk J. Bergquist, 2002 WI App 39
For Berhquist: Steven H. Gibbs
Issue: Whether the state’s refusal to return guns valued at between $5000 and $7,150, following conviction for disorderly conduct, violated the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause.
Holding:
¶8. Although the term “forfeiture” does not appear in this statute, our supreme court has recognized that the result of refusing to return a weapon to a person who committed a crime using the weapon is a forfeiture.
Sentencing – Review — Sentence Exceeding Statutory Maximum — Consecutive Terms of Probation — Remedy
State v. Glenn F. Schwebke, 2001 WI App 99, 242 Wis. 2d 585, 627 N.W.2d 213, affirmed on other grds., 2002 WI 55
For Schwebke: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School
Issue/Holding: The remedy for this sentence which exceeded the permissible maximum — multiple counts of probation running consecutive to one another, ¶¶25-30 — is to commute the excess portion to the total allowable term of probation.