On Point blog, page 448 of 489
Sentence Credit — Consecutive Sentences — Allocation to First Sentence
State v. Paul L. Wolfe, 2001 WI App 66, 242 Wis. 2d 426, 625 N.W.2d 655
For Wolfe: Gary Seeling
Issue: “The basic question before us is whether a court, in a multiple count conviction where one sentence is imposed and another stayed, must apply sentence credit to the conviction of the first imposed sentence,” ¶1.
Holding:
¶1. … We hold that it must under the rule of State v.
Restitution — Limtations — Unrelated Crime
State v. James A. Torpen, 2001 WI App 273, PFR filed 11/13/01
For Torpen: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a court has authority to order, as restitutive conditions of probation, payment of obligations from prior, unrelated criminal cases.
Holding:
¶14. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.20, a circuit court may order the payment of restitution to victims of crimes for which the defendant is being sentenced,
Restitution — Victim as Party to the Crime
State v. Chad J. Knoll, 2000 WI App 135, 237 Wis.2d 384, 614 N.W.2d 20
For Knoll: Ralph Kalal
Issue: Whether passenger Foust, injured in the crash of a car whose driver (Knoll) was drunk, was party to the crime of drunk driving and therefore not a “victim” for purposes of restitution.
Holding:
¶11 Because Knoll has not established either that Foust undertook conduct to aid Knoll in operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated or that Foust intended his conduct to help Knoll drive while impaired,
Restitution — Limitations — Ordering Payments Withheld from Prison Wages
State v. Troy B. Baker, 2001 WI App 100, 243 Wis. 2d 77, 626 N.W.2d 862
Issue: Whether the trial court had authority to order that restitution be withheld from prison wages.
Holding: Because a restitution order contained in a judgment of conviction is an “obligation reduced to judgment,” a trial court has authority under § 303.01(8)(b) to order disbursement of restitution from prison wages. ¶17.
Restitution — “Victim” — “Family Member” — Mother, Aunt
State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227, PFR filed
For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, on a conviction for homicide of a child, the child’s mother and aunt could be considered victims within the meaning of § 973.20(1r) so as to support restitution for their counseling costs.
Holding: “Victim” in § 973.20(1r) is assigned the meaning of “victim”
Restitution — “Victim” — County Department of Human Services
State v. Troy B. Baker, 2001 WI App 100, 243 Wis. 2d 77, 626 N.W.2d 862
For Baker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the county DHS, which paid out testing expenses for a sexual assault victim, may be considered for restitution purposes an “insurer, surety or other person who has compensated [the] victim.”
Holding: Because § 973.20(5)(d) permits restitution to a third party,
Restitution — “Victim” — Governmental Entity — Overtime Police Costs
State v. Gabriel L. Ortiz, 2001 WI App 215
For Ortiz: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether restitution may be ordered under § 973.20 for overtime police costs.
Holding:
¶20. The collective effect of Schmaling and Howard-Hastings is the following. A governmental entity can, in the appropriate case, be a victim entitled to restitution. (Howard-Hastings).
Waiver of Issue: Multiplicity
State v. William Koller, 2001 WI App 253, PFR filed
For Koller: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether multiplicity claims were waived due to lack of objection until after trial. Holding: Although it isn’t necessary to raise a multiplicity challenge before trial, waiver attaches if “also omitted prior to the time the case was submitted to the jury.” ¶40.
The court’s holding seems to be informed by two notions.
Presentation & Preservation of Argument – Citing Relevant Authority
State v. Debra Noble, 2001 WI App 145, reversed, other grounds, State v. Debra Noble, 2002 WI 64For Noble: Jeff P. Brinckman
Issue: Whether failure to cite relevant authority in support of appellate argument establishes waiver.
Holding:
¶11 … But Noble cites no authority requiring a tape recording, a transcript, or a signed statement to show the falsity of a statement.
Serial Litigation Bar – § 974.06 / Motion to Modify Sentence
State v. John Casteel, 2001 WI App 188, PFR filed
Issue: Whether defendant is entitled to have reviewed on the merits issues that either were, or could have been, raised on prior appeals.
Holding:
¶13. On appeal, Casteel raises three arguments, two of which we previously have addressed. He provides no reasoning why he could not have raised these arguments in his direct appeal or first Wis.