On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. William L. Brockett, 2002 WI App 115, PFR filed 5/17/02
For Brockett: Hans P. Koesser

Issue/Hearing: The trial court has inherent authority to vacate or modify an order (including, as in this instance, on state’s motion). ¶¶13-15.

State v. John D. Tiggs, Jr., 2002 WI App 181

Issue/Holding:

¶9. We agree with Tiggs that once he has changed his legal name, he has a positive right to be called by that name. But he may also, by conduct, forfeit that right. If he calls himself by some other name, he has announced to the world that he goes by that other name and others then have the right not only to call him by that other name,

State v. Jerry L. Parker,  2002 WI App 159, PFR filed 5/20/02
For Parker: William Christopher Rose

Issue: Whether the principle of State v. Perry, 136 Wis. 2d 92, 401 N.W.2d 748 (1987) (missing transcript that can’t be re-created requires new trial) applies to posttrial destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence (taped drug transaction) given to the defense before trial but never introduced into the record.

State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky
Issue/Holding: The trial court erred in granting a motion to modify sentence without either seeking the state’s response or holding a hearing. Procedure on motion to modify sentence is similar to that for a post-conviction motion under § 974.06(3) — if the motion is obviously non-meritorious, the trial court should deny it outright;

State v. Jonathan J. English-Lancaster, 2002 WI App 74, PFR filed 3/22/02
For English-Lancaster: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether defendant waived an objection to the violation of an in limine order, by waiting until a recess to enter an objection.

Holding:

¶17. When the State violated the stipulation and the court’s order at trial, English- Lancaster did not immediately object. Instead,

State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202
For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to portions of closing argument didn’t waive right to challenge them on appeal, where defendant obtained a “definitive pretrial ruling” which “served to preserve (his) position for appeal.” ¶25 n. 9.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Where restitution was for counseling expenses, Johnson failed to show good cause for discovery of her counseling records. ¶¶28-30.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Because record is clear that trial court ordered restitution, court of appeals refuses to recharacterize (and uphold) order as condition of probation:

¶25                        As a final argument, the State contends that even if W.L.’s wages are not recoverable under WIS. STAT. § 973.20, the circuit court could have properly required repayment of the lost wages as a condition of probation under WIS.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Wages lost by a stepparent’s accompanying the victim to court aren’t subject to restitution; lost wages are limited to those persons identified in § 973.20(5)(b). ¶¶22-23.

Issue/Holding: A stepparent is not victim for § 973.20(1r) restitution purposes, ¶¶17-19. (However, a stepparent may qualify as an “other person,” under § 973.20(5)(d),

State v. James N. Storlie, 2002 WI App 163
For Storlie: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the destruction of “stop sticks” caused by defendant’s flight from the police is properly subject to a restitution order.

Holding:

¶10…. (T)he government is entitled to restitution for losses incurred when it is a victim as a direct result of criminal conduct,