The Minnesota DWI Case Of The Week is State v. Martinez (Decided April 24, 2023, Minnesota Court of Appeals, Unpublished) which stands for the proposition that a court cannot order restitution without discussing the defendant's ability to pay the ordered amount.
In Martinez, the Defendant was driving his vehicle in Blue Earth County when the police observed his vehicle did not have a red cover on one taillight. The officer attempted to make a traffic stop of Mr. Martinez, but instead of stopping, Mr. Martinez increased his speed, ran stop signs and reached a speed of 115 miles per hour. Eventually, law enforcement attempted a pursuit-intervention-technique (PIT) maneuver, causing Martinez’s vehicle to come to a stop. Martinez admitted to smoking methamphetamine and being under its influence while driving.
Mr. Martinez pled guilty and the state filed two affidavits for restitution, one from the Minnesota Counties Intergovernmental Trust seeking $8,068.20 and one from Blue Earth County Finance seeking $1,000. The affidavits attested to the cost of repairs to the squad car that was damaged while pursuing Martinez.
Probation filed a presentence-investigation (PSI) report, which recommended a restitution award of $9,068.20 and also stated that if Martinez “chooses to execute his commitment,” restitution should “be paid out of prison earnings.” The PSI report specified that Martinez “has not maintained steady employment for the last five years” and that “his last employment was Burger King ... in January 2021,” where he worked for “three to four months until he started using drugs and left.” The report also noted that Martinez has “to pay child support but is behind on payments” and “would like the amount lowered.”
The district court “ordered [Martinez] to pay restitution in the amount of $9,068.20 that is to be paid out of any prison earnings” by April 25, 2024, and stated it was “not imposing a fine . . . due to the large amount of restitution.
The Defendant appealed the restitution order and the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the District Court as the lower court failed to establish it had considered the Defendant's ability to pay the restitution amount. Or, as stated by the Appellate Court:
"In Wigham, the supreme court reversed and remanded a restitution award because the district court failed to fulfill its statutory duty to consider the defendant’s ability to pay. 967 N.W.2d at 664, 666. In doing so, the supreme court held that the “district court fulfills its statutory duty to consider a defendant’s income, resources, and obligations in awarding and setting the amount of restitution when it expressly states, either orally or in writing, that it considered the defendant’s ability to pay.” Id. at 664 (emphasis added). The district court need not “make specific findings about the defendant’s income, resources, and obligations to support [its] express statement that it considered the defendant’s ability to pay,” but doing so is “best practice.” Id. at 665 & n.6. Even if the district court makes specific findings, “the record must include sufficient evidence about the defendant’s income, resources, and obligations to allow a district court to consider the defendant’s ability to pay the amount of restitution ordered.” Id. at 665."
***
"The state first argues that the district court considered Martinez’s ability to pay by reviewing the PSI report, which “contained information regarding [Martinez’s] income and employment,” and by determining that Martinez “was financially unable to obtain counsel” when the district court appointed a public defender for Martinez. But this argument rests on the faulty premise that the district court need not expressly state that it considered a defendant’s ability to pay restitution. See Wigham, 967N.W.2d at 666 (holding that the district court “must expressly state” it considered the defendant’s “ability to pay—his income, resources, and obligations—when ordering restitution”). Thus, neither the district court’s review of the PSI report nor its appointment of a public defender, which occurred before the sentencing hearing, satisfied the district court’s statutory duty to expressly state it considered Martinez’s ability to pay restitution."
"Second, the state relies on the district court’s statement that restitution should be paid out of Martinez’s prison earnings as showing the district court considered Martinez’s ability to pay restitution. The state cites State v. Tenerelli, 583 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. App. 1998), affd as modified by 598 N.W.2d 668 (Minn. 1999), which significantly predates Wigham. In Tenerelli, we determined that the district court’s reference to the defendant’s prison earnings as the source of restitution payments showed it had considered the defendant’s ability to pay. 583 N.W.2d at 3. But the supreme court adopted a bright-line rule in Wigham, stating it sought to “avoid[] the need to scour bits and pieces of information to try to glean what the district court may have considered.” 967 N.W.2d at 664 n.5 (emphasis omitted). Wigham teaches that the district court’s reference to Martinez’s prison earnings does not fulfill its statutory duty under Minn. Stat. § 611A.045."
"For the same reason, we reject the state’s third argument, which urges us to conclude that the district court’s decision not to fine Martinez also shows the district court considered Martinez’s ability to pay restitution. The district court’s statement that it was “not imposing a fine . . . due to the large amount of restitution” does not “expressly” state it considered Martinez’s “ability to pay” restitution. See id. at 666."
"In sum, we conclude that because the district court did not expressly state it considered Martinez’s ability to pay, it failed to fulfill its statutory duty to consider the income, resources, and obligations of the defendant and abused its discretion in ordering restitution. Thus, we reverse and remand. In considering restitution on remand, the district court may in its discretion reopen the record and order an updated PSI report to include information on Martinez’s income, resources, and obligations."
Moral Of The Story: You can't get blood out of a turnip!
If you or a loved one have been charged with a Minnesota DWI, feel free to contact Minnesota DWI Attorney, F. T. Sessoms at (612) 344-1505 for answers to all of your Minnesota DWI and DUI questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment