On Point blog, page 478 of 484
Restitution – Limitations — court’s competency to order refund
State v. James D. Minniecheske, 223 Wis.2d 493, 590 N.W.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Minniechske: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether the sentencing court possessed authority to order refund of money ($1500+) improperly seized from Minniecheske’s prison account to satisfy restitution.
Holding:
We conclude that the trial court correctly amended the judgment of conviction to remove the restitution obligation.[1] We further agree that,
Restitution — “Victim” — Police: As Crime Prevention Organization
State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
To define “crime prevention organization” to include law enforcement agencies would lead to absurd results. By ordering a defendant to make a contribution to a “crime prevention organization,” a court could order a defendant to repay internal operating expenses of a police department and routine operating expenses of the State Crime Laboratory or return drug “buy money”
Judicial Estoppel: Challenge to Favorable Ruling
State v. Darcy N.K., 218 Wis. 2d 640, 581 N.W.2d 567 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Darcy K.: Kenneth L. Lund, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: A party who prevailed at the trial level is judicially estopped, on appeal, from challenging the trial court’s favorable action taken at his or her own request.
Waiver of Issue: Jury Selection – Batson Objection, Timeliness: Prior to Jury’s Swearing
State v. Dennis Jones, 218 Wis. 2d 599, 581 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Jones: Michael S. Holzman
Issue/Holding:
The State argues that Jones’s Batson objection, made after the jury was sworn, came too late. Jones responds that his objection was timely. We conclude that the defendant must make a Batson objection prior to the time the jury is sworn. If the objection is not made until after that time,
Binding Authority — Retroactivity — Statute Declared Unconstitutional
State v. Paul R. Benzel, 220 Wis. 2d 588, 583 N.W.2d 434 (Ct. App. 1998)
Pro se
Issue/Holding: The holding of State v. Hall, 207 Wis.2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), that the drug tax, § 139.95, is unconstitutional applies retroactively: “failure to do so leads to the untenable result that a person stands convicted for conduct which has been held constitutionally immune from punishment. … (¶) A court cannot acquire jurisdiction to try a person for an act made criminal only by an unconstitutional law.”
NGI — Conditional Release Trial — Jury Instruction on Dangerousness
State v. Alan Adin Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Randall: Waring Fincke
Issue/Holding: The trial court properly rejected requested instruction that the State must prove “a level of present danger which cannot be managed safely in the community under any set of reasonable conditions,” and instead properly gave an instruciton that the State must prove that “Randall cannot be safely discharged or released without [sic] a danger to himsel for others.”
NGI — Conditional Release Trial — Jury Instruction on Medical Justification / Substantive Due Process
State v. Alan Adin Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Randall: Waring Fincke
Issue/Holding:
Randall proposed to ask the jury, “Is there any medical justification for the Petitioner’s continued confinement at the Winnebago Mental Health Institute or any other in-patient mental health facility?” The trial court, holding that the State did not have to prove a therapeutic justification, refused to submit the requested instruction.
NGI — Conditional Release Trial — Sufficiency of Evidence on Dangerousness
State v. Alan Adin Randall, 222 Wis. 2d 53, 586 N.W.2d 318 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Randall: Waring Fincke
Issue/Holding: Evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s verdict that Randall not be released, based largely on the cicrcumstances of his crime.
Sentence Modification: Judicial Estoppel Bar — Agreement to Recommended Sentence
Scott A. Magnuson, 220 Wis. 2d 468, 583 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Magnuson: T. Gregory Amann
Issue/Holding:
We conclude that Magnuson is judicially estopped from asserting that the two twelve-year concurrent sentences are excessive. Although Magnuson contends he did not agree to the recommended sentence, the record belies his claim. Magnuson’s probation officer set forth the recommendation in the presentence investigation report (PSI).
Sentencing – Review — Factors — Character — Rehabilitative Needs
State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
Bizzle argues that the sentencing court erred in concluding that she required extensive rehabilitation. … First, her successful completion of an educational program, after sentencing, is not evidence that the court acted unreasonably or was not justified in concluding that she required extensive rehabilitation.