On Point: D. Type of punishment

State v. Deborah A. Schicker, 2013AP651-CR, District 2, 8/21/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Schicker pleaded guilty to a single count of theft. Of the multiple items listed as stolen in the complaint, she admitted to taking only the two items recovered before she was charged. (¶¶2-3). After a restitution hearing she was ordered to pay for the loss of the unrecovered items as well as for another item (a bracelet) not even listed in the complaint.

State v. Brandon M. Pokey, 2012AP2412-CR, District 2, 8/14/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

The sentencing court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it made Pokey, who was convicted of armed robbery of a bank, ineligible for the Earned Release Program. At sentencing the court based its decision on all of the required sentencing factors, not just on the seriousness of the offense,

Question presented:

What, if any, causal relationship or nexus between the defendant’s conduct and the victim’s harm or damages must the government or the victim establish in order to recover restitution under 18 U.S.C. § 2259?

Lower court opinion: In re: Amy Unknown: United States v. Paroline, 701 F.3d 749 (5th Cir. 2012)

Docket

Scotusblog page

This is an important case for anyone handling federal possession of child pornography cases,

United States v. Anthony James Kebodeaux, USSC No. 12-418, 6/24/13

United States Supreme Court decision, reversing U.S. v. Kebodeaux, 687 F.3d 232 (5th Cir. 2012)

The Court holds that the federal Sex Offender Registration and Notification Act (SORNA) applies to a person despite the fact he was convicted (at a court martial), and completed service of his sentence, before passage of the Act.

State v. Christopher James Athas, 2012AP2151-CR, District 1, 6/11/13; court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

The circuit court properly considered previous sexual assault charges that had been dismissed when it was deciding whether to order Athas to register as a sex offender after his conviction for fourth degree sexual assault:

¶3        …. Whether to order sex-offender registration is part of the circuit court’s sentencing discretion. 

State v. Devante J. Lumpkins, 2012AP1670-CR, District 1, 4/2/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Lumpkins is liable for restitution for damage to a stolen van he and two co-defendants (“The Jack Boys”) used to commit two armed robberies, even though Lumpkins was not charged with or convicted of the theft of the van. Restitution requires that there be a “direct victim” of the crime and a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the claimed damages (¶7),

State v. Antoine Leshawn Douglas, 2013 WI App 52; case activity

Miranda violation — interrogation by police

After a lawful arrest, but before being given Miranda warnings, Douglas initiated a conversation with the arresting officer in which he stated he wanted “to work” for the police by offering information about some marijuana dealers. After the officer declined that offer there was a “pause,” followed by Douglas changing the subject and volunteering information about a gun;

State v. Manuel R. Williams, 2012AP357-CR, District 1, 1/29/13; court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Terry stop – reasonable suspicion

Police had reasonable suspicion to stop defendant where, based on suppression hearing testimony, circuit court found that: the officers were sent to a shooting in “a high risk area”; when police arrived, they noticed Williams because he had a big jacket on and was holding his hands in an “odd” way,

Question presented:

1. Whether the court of appeals erred in conducting its constitutional analysis on the premise that respondent was not under a federal registration obligation until SORNA was enacted, when pre-SORNA federal law obligated him to register as a sex offender.

2. Whether the court of appeals erred in holding that Congress lacks the Article I authority to provide for criminal penalties under 18 U.S.C.

State v. Thomas G. Felski, 2012AP1115-CR, District 2, 1/3/13

Court of appeals decision (1 judge; ineligible for publication); case activity

Felski was convicted of violating Wis. Admin. Code ATCP § 110.05 (criminalized by virtue of § 100.20(2)) for failing to have a written contract covering some remodeling projects. Evidence at trial focused on construction of a garage, but Felski also worked on an addition to the house not covered by a written contract.