802 N.W.2d 849
Minn. Ct. App.2011Background
- Maxwell orchestrated a real-estate scheme obtaining over $2,000,000 in fraudulent mortgage loans.
- He used control over a real-estate brokerage to access information enabling identity thefts, forgeries, and theft by swindle.
- State charged Maxwell with racketeering, identity theft, theft by swindle, and aggravated forgery; convicted on all 18 counts.
- Maxwell waived a restitution hearing; district court decided restitution from written submissions.
- District court ordered $217,687.54 restitution to the identity-theft victim, including $196,275.54 for refinancing losses and $6,600 for credit services.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to jury trial on restitution facts | Maxwell argues jury facts required under Blakely/Apprendi. | Maxwell contends Blakely/Apprendi apply to restitution. | Blakely/Apprendi not applicable to restitution. |
| Causal nexus for mortgage-refinance loss and credit costs | Losses were not directly caused by Maxwell's crimes. | Losses were foreseeable and directly caused by identity theft. | District court did not err; losses directly caused by crimes. |
Key Cases Cited
- People v. Smith, 181 P.3d 324 (Colo.Ct.App.2007) (restitution not governed by maximums under Blakely/Apprendi)
- United States v. Milkiewicz, 470 F.3d 390 (1st Cir.2006) (restitution framework differs from sentencing regimes in Blakely)
- United States v. Reifler, 446 F.3d 65 (2d Cir.2006) (Apprendi/Blakely do not apply to restitution under MVRA)
- United States v. Wooten, 377 F.3d 1134 (10th Cir.2004) (restitution does not violate Blakely unless exceeds damages)
- State v. Clapper, 273 Neb. 750, 732 N.W.2d 662 (Neb. 2007) (Apprendi/Blakely rule not applicable to restitution)
- State v. Martinez, 392 N.J. Super. 307, 920 A.2d 715 (N.J.Super.Ct.App.Div.2007) (restitution not a punishment beyond maximum; admissible findings within statutory range)
- People v. Horne, 97 N.Y.2d 404, 740 N.Y.S.2d 675, 767 N.E.2d 132 (N.Y.2002) (restraint on enhancing maximums; restitution within authorized range)
- State v. McMillan, 199 Or.App. 398, 111 P.3d 1136 (Or.App.2005) (restitution statute defines recoverable damages, not S.Ct. maximum)
- State v. Kinneman, 155 Wash.2d 272, 119 P.3d 350 (Wash.2005) (restitution scheme more like indeterminate sentencing; not sixth amendment issue)