On Point blog, page 189 of 214
Restitution — Limitations — Time Limit
State v. Carl Simonetto, 2000 WI App 17, 232 Wis.2d 315, 606 N.W.2d 275
For Simonetto: Christopher L. Hartley
Issue: Whether the trial court erred in holding open restitution until certain victims could be identified.
Holding: “Section 973.20(13)(c), Stats., creates a ninety-day maximum hold-open period for entry of restitution after a sentence is imposed.” ¶10. (Note: The holding is probably more limited than the quote implies.
Restitution — Defenses — Contributory Negligence
State v. Chad J. Knoll, 2000 WI App 135, 237 Wis.2d 384, 614 N.W.2d 20
Issue: Whether contributory negligence is a defense to restitution.
Holding: ¶¶16, 17:
Restitution is not a claim that is owned by an individual but a remedy of the State…. To allow a defendant who has already been convicted of a crime to focus on the action of a victim to avoid restitution defeats this purpose because it permits him to evade responsibility for his own actions….
Presentation & Preservation of Argument – Footnotes
State v. Miguel Angel Santana-Lopez, 2000 WI App 122, 237 Wis.2d 332, 613 N.W.2d 918
For Santana-Lopez: Rex Anderegg
Issue/Holding: “We do not consider an argument mentioned only in a footnote to be adequately raised or preserved for appellate review,” ¶6 n.4.
Interesting that the holding itself happens to be contained in a footnote.
Restitution — Causation — “Natural and Probable Consequence” of Crime — Damage Caused by Police While Defendant Resisted Arrest
State v. Freeman Canady, 2000 WI App 87, 234 Wis. 2d 261, 610 N.W.2d 147
For Canady: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a defendant, convicted of resisting arrest, can be ordered to pay restitution for damage caused by a police officer in the course of subduing him.
Holding: Because the damage was a natural consequence of the defendant’s resisting, the defendant was a substantial factor in causing that damage and can be required to make restitution for it.
Review — Sentence After Revocation — Imposed by same Judge
State v. Brian C. Wegner, 2000 WI App 231, 239 Wis.2d 96, 619 N.W.2d 289
For Wegner: Scott A. Szabrowicz
Issue: Whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion, in sentencing after revocation, by failing to consider primary sentencing factors.
Holding:
¶9 We conclude that when the same judge presides at the sentencing after revocation and the original sentencing, the judge does not have to restate the reasons supporting the original sentencing;
NGI Plea Precluded by Late Timing
State v. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court improperly precluded Oswald from raising an NGI plea.
Holding:
¶ 49. The decision whether to grant a defendant’s motion to change his or her plea from “not guilty” to “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect”
SVP: Discovery Violation — Waiver
State v. Eric Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis.2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97
For Pletz: Michael J. Backes
Issue: Whether the state’s pretrial failure to disclose that its witness used the RRASOR screening instrument to evaluate Pletz violated his discovery rights.
Holding: Pletz waived any discovery objection by not promptly objecting, given that he was provided this information before the witness testified. ¶26. Moreover,
SVP Commitments: Post-Disposition – Discipline: Living Unit Reassignment
Edwin C. West v. Macht, 2000 WI App 134, 237 Wis. 2d 265, 614 N.W.2d 34
Issue: Whether living unit reassignment of a Ch. 980 subject was made in retaliation for his exercise of his constitutional right to petition on grievances.
Holding: A commitment subject has a protected interest against being punished for exercising first amendment rights, ¶15; however, those rights may be validly restricted if “reasonably related to legitimate therapeutic and institutional interests.”
Sentence Modification — New Factor: Community Support
State v. Thomas W. Koeppen, 2000 WI App 121, 237 Wis.2d 418, 614 N.W.2d 530
For Koeppen: Richard L. Zaffiro
Issue/Holding: Level of community support” enjoyed by the defendant not a new factor justifying sentence reduction.
SVP – Trial: Evidence – Hearsay: Letters from DSM-IV Committee
State v. Eric Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis.2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97
For Pletz: Michael J. Backes
Issue: Whether letters from DSM-IV committee members, regarding the impact of an assault on a diagnosis of pedophilia, were properly admitted.
Holding: A basis for an expert opinion, otherwise hearsay, is admissible if of “a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the particular field…. The letters relied on here,