Sentencing — Restitution

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Sentencing — Restitution

Where the victim’s insurer had already paid the victim to replace the car stolen by the defendant, the circuit court properly ordered that restitution to be paid to the insurer, even though the car was recovered before sentencing.

“WISCONSIN STAT. § 973.20(2)(a) permits a circuit court at sentencing to order return of property to the owner; however, if such return is impossible, impractical or inadequate, the court may order repair or replacement under §973.20(2)(b). Here, the option to order return of the vehicle was no longer available at sentencing. Moreover, when the vehicle was recovered, the victim had been compensated by Acuity, and the circumstances made return of the vehicle at that time impractical. Thus, the court did not err in declining to impose an after-the-fact return requirement upon Acuity’ restitution claim. In so concluding, we note that this court has previously rejected the contention that the eventual recovery of stolen property satisfies the defendant’s restitution obligation, instead holding that § 973.20 permits the circuit court to fashion restitution to fit the crime and make the victim whole. See State v. Boffer, 158 Wis. 2d 655, 661-62, 462 N.W.2d 906 (Ct. App. 1990) (‘The statute is obviously drafted to fit neatly into the court’s sentencing discretion.’). This includes the discretion to select between any number of reasonable approaches to restitution—whether it be the return of the property or paying the repair or replacement cost. See id.”

Affirmed.

Recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP1760-CR State v. Gibson

Dist. II, Fond du Lac County, Nuss, J., Neubauer, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Moses, Faun M., Madison; For Respondent: Noet, Nancy A., Madison; Kaminsky, Daniel, Fond du Lac