On Point: B. Published opinions

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,

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.

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”

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,

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).

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.

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.

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.

State v. William Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, PFR filed
For Nielsen: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding:

¶20. Our review of a claimed discovery violation under Wis. Stat. § 971.23 is subject to a harmless error analysis. See State v. Koopmans, 202 Wis. 2d 385, 396, 550 N.W.2d 715 (Ct. App. 1996). The test of harmless error is whether the appellate court in its independent determination can conclude there is sufficient evidence,

State v. Stanley A. Samuel, 2001 WI App 25, 240 Wis. 2d 756, 623 N.W.2d 565, affirmed, other grounds, 2002 WI 34
For Samuel: Robert R. Henak

Issue: Whether the defendant waived objection to the sentencing court’s reliance on information sealed from the defendant’s inspection.

Holding:

¶42 We accept the State’s waiver argument. First, just because the trial court was in its “imposing sentence”