On Point: D. Type of punishment

State v. David H. Ninnemann, 2016AP1294-CR, 12/14/2016, District 2 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

David Ninnemann appeals from sentencing after revocation of his probation. He challenges the length of his jail sentences and the court’s order that he register as a sex offender, but the court of appeals upholds both of the trial court’s discretionary decisions.

State v. Travis J. Manteuffel, 2016AP96-CR, 12/6/16, District 3 (1-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

State v. Elward, 2015 WI App 51, 363 Wis. 2d 628, 866 N.W.2d 756, held it an ex post facto violation to require misdemeanants to pay the $200 DNA surcharge where the law imposing it went into effect after they had committed their crimes.

State v. Michael Lee Brayson, 2016AP896-CR, District 1, 11/29/16 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Brayson’s girlfriend, L.A.R., is a long-haul trucker. When she goes out on the road he accompanies her and stays with her in the truck, though both maintained separate addresses in Mississippi. (¶¶3-6). Under these facts, Brayson’s convictions for battery of L.A.R. at a Wisconsin travel center were subject to the domestic abuse surcharges and modifiers under §§ 968.075(1)(a)(intro.) and 973.055(1)(a)2. because Brayson and L.A.R. “reside[d]” together in the truck.

State v. Tydis Trinard Odom, 2015AP2525-CR; District 2, 11/9/16; certification refused 1/9/17; case activity (including briefs)

Issue:

Does the imposition of multiple DNA surcharges constitute “potential punishment” under WIS. STAT. § 971.08(1)(a) such that a court’s failure to advise a defendant about them before taking his or her plea establishes a prima facie showing that the defendant’s plea was unknowing, involuntary, and unintelligent?

Question presented (as formulated by Scotusblog):

Whether, under the court’s First Amendment precedents, a law that makes it a felony for any person on the state’s registry of former sex offenders to “access” a wide array of websites – including Facebook, YouTube, and nytimes.com – that enable communication, expression, and the exchange of information among their users, if the site is “know[n]” to allow minors to have accounts, is permissible, both on its face and as applied to petitioner, who was convicted based on a Facebook post in which he celebrated dismissal of a traffic ticket, declaring “God is Good!”

State v. Thomas J. Queever, 2016 WI App 87; case activity (including briefs)

Thomas Queever tried to break into a house. We know this because the home’s security system captured video of him doing so. The circuit court and the court of appeals ordered him to pay the cost of said security system, concluding that the expense of installing it was the “result of a crime considered at sentencing,” even though it was installed prior to the burglary of which Queever was convicted. Does the court of appeals’ authority extend to reversing the arrow of time?

State v. David L. Tarlo, 2016 WI App 81; case activity (including briefs)

When’s the last time you saw a defense win on a restitution issue? This child porn case addresses the vexing problem of circuit courts awarding restitution though the victim failed to prove that her losses were “a result of a crime considered at sentencing” as required by Wis. Stat. §973.20(14)(a). 

Question presented:

Colorado, like many states, imposes various monetary penalties when a person is convicted of a crime. But Colorado appears to be the only state that does not refund these penalties when a conviction is reversed. Rather, Colorado requires defendants to prove their innocence by clear and convincing evidence to get their money back.

The Question Presented is whether this requirement is consistent with due process.

State v. Terry C. Craig, Jr., 2016AP177-CR, District 4, 8/11/16 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Craig struck and shattered the left tail light on an old car but he did not put a baseball-sized hole or a 2 inch crack on the left of it. That was preexisting damage. The circuit court ordered him to pay restitution for it any way, and the court of appeals affirmed.

State v. Pagenkopf, 2015AP1855-CR, 7/21/16, District 4 (1-judge opinion, ineligible for publication); case activity  (including briefs)

Per §973.20(13)(c)4, a court commissioner held a hearing and submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that Pagenkopf pay $19,274.69 in restitution. Pagenkopf sought de novo review via §757.69(8), which provides that a “decision” by a court commissioner shall be reviewed by the circuit court upon the motion of any party.  According to the court of appeals, §757.69(8) does not apply to a commissioner’s restitution findings.