Opinion
No. 2013AP341–CR.
2013-11-13
STATE of Wisconsin, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Ericka S. THOMAS, Defendant–Appellant.
Thomas's postconviction motion repeated her lawyer's contention that she could not pay what the circuit court ordered, arguing that it “exceeds the ability of Ms. Thomas to pay” as she has “extremely limited earning ability.” She also contended that the circuit court should not have considered that she might win the lottery. As we have seen, the postconviction court denied the motion. It explained, after noting, as did the sentencing court, that the restitution order could be made into a judgment, and that the judgment would be open for what the postconviction court indicated was “at least 20 years,” an assertion that Thomas does not dispute on this appeal: Thomas repeats her no-ability-to-pay contentions on this appeal.