On Point: 22. Restitution decision

State v. C.J.L.,  2024AP1917, 7/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.J.L. contests part of the restitution ordered in his juvenile case related to a theft and break in at a dance studio–restitution for a surveillance subscription purchased after the theft, and for damages to the studio’s dance floor. Because the juvenile statute, Wis. Stat. § 938.34(5)(a), permits restitution for physical injury to a person or damage to property only, the COA agrees with C.J.L. and reverses the restitution order.

State v. Daecorion J. Robinson, 2022AP2087-CR, 5/28/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a rare “causal nexus” win, 2 judges in D1 agree that the circuit court’s order was infirm. Under the text of the restitution statute, Robinson’s aiding a felon does not make him liable for the consequences of that felon’s underlying criminal conduct.

State v. Lynetta Lake, 2024AP115-CR, 11/12/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Lake pleaded guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle and hit and run of an attended vehicle. Following a hearing, the circuit court ordered restitution. Lake filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call two witnesses during the restitution hearing.

State v. J.A.J., 2022AP2066, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a noteworthy juvenile appeal, COA rejects a novel argument highlighting the dysfunctional nature of our juvenile justice system as caused by the “closure” of Lincoln Hills.

State v. Jeffrey W. Butler, 2021AP2212-CR, 1/11/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

At Butler’s restitution hearing, the circuit court expressed frustration and disappointment that neither party presented any documentation regarding a disputed restitution claim. The court stated, “I have nothing other than testimony saying [the victim’s] done all this stuff and Googled it and she doesn’t bring in any receipts.” The court continued: “Nothing, I have nothing…[s]o the court is left with, based on testimony, what’s a reasonable amount of restitution…” The court then concluded, “I’ll put $500 toward clothing.” Butler appealed and the court of appeals affirms, holding that the victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to support the restitution award.

State v. Timothy D. Wright, 2020AP1578, 2/25/2021, District 4 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Wright worked at Christmas Mountain. Over the course of a couple of months he allegedly directed several racist and threatening rants at colleagues, including threats to kill some of them. A supervisor eventually called the police, and Wright was fired and charged with four counts of disorderly conduct. He eventually pleaded to two with the other two read in. The circuit court ordered Wright to pay $14,755 in restitution to the corporation that owns Christmas Mountain at $100 per month. Wright argues this was improper for three reasons: because the corporation was not statutorily a “victim” of his conduct; because the claimed damages–the cost to hire armed guards after he was fired–were not “special damages … which could be recovered in a civil action”; and because the circuit court failed to consider his inability to pay.

State v. Shawn T. Wiskerchen, 2019 WI 1, 1/4/19, affirming an unpublished court of appeals decision, 2016AP1541; case activity (including briefs)

This could have turned out worse. The court of appeals, as we noted in our post on that court’s decision, held that Wiskerchen, convicted of a single burglary of a home, could be made to pay restitution for his alleged prior burglaries of the same home, even though those alleged burglaries were neither charged nor read in, as the statute seems to require. Four justices now conclude, through a creative reading of the record, that the circuit court found Wiskerchen took everything in the single burglary. So, precedentially, this case amounts to little or nothing, and for now at least, the court avoids embracing the court of appeals’ view that results can precede causes.

Go: here.