On Point blog, page 426 of 483
Restitution – Special Damages – “Loss of Use” – Rental Fees
State v. Joseph A. Kayon, 2002 WI App 178
For Kayon: Ronald J. Sonderhouse
Issue/Holding: Both the replacement cost of a television stolen by the defendant, and rental fees of a television while the case was pending, may be recovered in restitution. The rental fees represent “loss of use” damage that could be claimed in a civil action and therefore qualify as a special damage.
(T)he standard to be applied to such recovery is that of reasonableness under all the circumstances of the particular case.
Restitution – Special Damages – Time Spent by Victim’s Salaried Employee Investigating Offense
State v. William A. Rouse, 2002 WI App 107, PFR filed 5/8/02
For Rouse: Morris D. Berman
Issue/Holding: Time spent by a bank’s salaried employees investigating the crime (forgery) is subject to restitution because,
while the bank’s employees were investigating Rouse’s forgeries, they were prevented from doing other work for the bank, and thus the bank lost all value of their services during that time.
Review — Resentencing — Correction of Unlawful Sentence — Double Jeopardy — Increase in Original Sentence
State v. Timothy J. Helm, 2002 WI App 154, PFR filed 6/11/02
Issue: Whether resentencing, to correct an illegal sentence, violated double jeopardy because it resulted in an increase in the original sentence.
Holding: On sentence after revocation, the trial court reimposed probation on one of the counts; this was an unauthorized disposition which the trial court properly corrected by subsequently resentencing to an active term of imprisonment on that count.
Re-Sentencing — Multiple Counts, Challenge to One Count
State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02
For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: ¶39 n. 1:
Groth was sentenced on all three counts at the same hearing and, therefore, the court’s determination of his sentence on any of the counts may well have affected its determination and structuring of his sentences on all three.
Defense win – circuit court lost competency due to incorrect computation of time Limit for probable cause hearing
Dodge County v. Ryan E.M., 2002 WI App 71
For Ryan E.M.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the 72-hour deadline, necessary for the court’s competency over the ch. 51 commitment proceeding, is measured from the subject’s time of detention. (“¶4. The issue in this case is whether the method of computing time set forth in Wis. Stat. § 990.001(4)(a) and (d), in which the first day is excluded,
Protective Services – Competence of Court following Untimely Probable Cause Hearing
Kindcare, Inc. v. Judith G., 2002 WI App 36
Issue/Holding:
¶3 The issue presented by this appeal is whether the circuit court loses competence to adjudicate a person’s need for protective placement if the probable-cause hearing is not held within seventy-two hours after the person was taken into custody, or whether, as the trial court determined, the seventy-two-hours clock can be reset by the simple expedient of filing a new petition for protective placement.
Protective Services – Personal Presence of Alleged Incompetent
Knight and Knight v. Milwaukee Co., 2002 WI App 194
Issue/Holding: A trial court lacks competency to enter orders with respect to an alleged incompetent, unless the g.a.l. certifies the specific reasons the person can’t attend, pursuant to § 880.08(1).
NGI — Revocation — Timeliness of Petition
State v. George Schertz, 2002 WI App 289
For Schertz: Barbara A. Cadwell
Issue/Holding: The provision in § 971.17(3)(e) for hearing within 30 days a petition for revocation of NGI conditional release is directory, not mandatory. ¶¶7-14.
SVP Commitment: Claim/Issue Preclusion – Prior Dismissal of Petition at Trial for Insufficient Proof
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act of sexual violence.
Holding:
¶22. Although Parrish’s preclusion argument presents an issue of first impression in Wisconsin,
SVP: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Failure to Obtain Expert – Lack of Prejudice
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The trial court’s rejection of respondent’s post-commitment proffer of an expert, in support of a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not securing an expert, is sustained, due in particular to the trial court’s conclusion that the proffered expert would not have altered the outcome: “that judge,