On Point: Published 2002

State v. Jonathan J. English-Lancaster, 2002 WI App 74, PFR filed 3/22/02
For English-Lancaster: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether defendant waived an objection to the violation of an in limine order, by waiting until a recess to enter an objection.

Holding:

¶17. When the State violated the stipulation and the court’s order at trial, English- Lancaster did not immediately object. Instead,

State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202
For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to portions of closing argument didn’t waive right to challenge them on appeal, where defendant obtained a “definitive pretrial ruling” which “served to preserve (his) position for appeal.” ¶25 n. 9.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Where restitution was for counseling expenses, Johnson failed to show good cause for discovery of her counseling records. ¶¶28-30.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Because record is clear that trial court ordered restitution, court of appeals refuses to recharacterize (and uphold) order as condition of probation:

¶25                        As a final argument, the State contends that even if W.L.’s wages are not recoverable under WIS. STAT. § 973.20, the circuit court could have properly required repayment of the lost wages as a condition of probation under WIS.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Wages lost by a stepparent’s accompanying the victim to court aren’t subject to restitution; lost wages are limited to those persons identified in § 973.20(5)(b). ¶¶22-23.

Issue/Holding: A stepparent is not victim for § 973.20(1r) restitution purposes, ¶¶17-19. (However, a stepparent may qualify as an “other person,” under § 973.20(5)(d),

State v. James N. Storlie, 2002 WI App 163
For Storlie: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the destruction of “stop sticks” caused by defendant’s flight from the police is properly subject to a restitution order.

Holding:

¶10…. (T)he government is entitled to restitution for losses incurred when it is a victim as a direct result of criminal conduct,

State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶27 … Here, Grindemann did object to the prosecutor’s mention of uncharged offenses at sentencing, but the objection was based on the lack of evidence ‘properly before the court,’ not on any claim that the State was violating either the terms or the ‘spirit’ of the plea agreement.

State v. Douglas J. Lasky, 2002 WI App 126, PFR filed 5/16/02
For Lasky: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Claim of “statutory double jeopardy,” § 939.71, not barred by guilty plea waiver rule; court therefore may consider merits of whether elements of federal bank robbery conviction are the same, and therefore preclude prosecution of, state armed robbery.

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: Reviewing court may address merits of attack on sentence based on inaccurate information, notwithstanding absence of contemporaneous objection. ¶25. It is appropriate here for the court to overlook waiver, where the state concedes that it can’t support the information now challenged; and defendant’s postconviction motion showed that information was inaccurate and also established a basis for believing that he didn’t have an adequate opportunity to refute the information.

State v. Anthony J. Randle, 2002 WI App 116, PFR filed 4/2/02
For Randle: Paul G. Bonneson

Issue: Whether a territorial jurisdiction objection (that none of the constitutent elements occurred in the state, § 939.03(1)) is waived by guilty plea to a lesser offense.
Holding:

¶14 In this case, we need not decide whether a defendant may waive territorial jurisdiction altogether-that is, when an issue arises as to whether the charging document charges a crime that is committed wholly outside the territorial jurisdiction of Wisconsin.