On Point: D. Type of punishment

State v. Jesse D. Fries, 2011AP517-CR, District 4, 12/27/12

Court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); case activity

Cost of installing new, upgraded security system in a convenience store after robbery was a “special damage” and therefore a proper item of restitution:

¶8        Fries’ primary contention is that an expenditure does not qualify as a special damage unless it was “spent to return the victim to the financial state he was in before the crime occurred.”  Here,

Cesar Deleon v. Circuit Court for Brown County, 2012AP278, District 3, 10/10/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, ineligible for publication); case activity

Summary Contempt, §§ 785.01(1)(a), 785.04(2)(b) – “Unit” of Sanctionable Conduct 

Separate, consecutive punishments meted out for each of 11 profane utterances and 1 act of spitting during brief exchange with judge upheld, against argument they “amounted only to a single act of contempt because they took place during a short period of time.”

State v. Cody A. Gibson, 2012 WI App 103 (recommended for publication); case activity

Restitution order to reimburse insurance company and owner for insurance deductible, in relation to losses arising from stolen auto, upheld. The company (Acuity) paid the owners $11,113 the same day the car was stolen, but the car was recovered with very little damage the very next day. The car was appraised at $10,379 and Acuity turned it over to a salvage company,

Southern Union Company v. United States, USSC No. 11-94, 6/21/12, reversing 630 F.3d 17 (1st Cir 2010)

Criminal fines, no less than length of imprisonment, come within the “Apprendi” doctrine, such that a fine beyond the maximum statutory amount must be based on facts decided by the jury. Southern Union was tried for violating environmental laws carrying a fine of up to $50,000 per day in violation.

State v. Willie H. Jackson, 2012 WI App 76 (recommended for publication); case activity

§ 973.048(1m) (2003-04) authorizes the sentencing court to require sex offender registration under § 301.45 for conviction of enumerated crimes, “if the court determines that the underlying conduct was sexually motivated as defined in s. 980.01(5)” and public protection would be advanced thereby. (“Sexually motivated,” as might be imagined, means that “sexual arousal or gratification”

State v. Eric Archie Armstrong, District 2/1, 2010AP1056-CR, 5/30/12

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Armstrong: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Setting restitution four years after sentencing didn’t violate double jeopardy principles, turning principally on whether Johnson “had a legitimate expectation of finality in the first judgment,” State v. Greene, 2008 WI App 100, ¶15, 313 Wis.

State v. Matthew O. Roach, 2011AP2105-CR, District 4, 5/17/12

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roach: Brandon Kuhl; case activity

Mootness Doctrine – Generally 

¶8 n. 2:

The State also contends that this issue is moot because the condition of probation Roach challenges expired on January 19, 2012.  An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.  

State v. William Dinkins, Sr., 2012 WI 24, affirming 2010 WI App 163; for Dinkins: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; note: the court affirms the mandate (reversal of conviction and dismissal of charge), but “upon a different rationale,” ¶63; the net effect is, “affirmed, as modified“

Although homelessness is not in and of itself a defense to prosecution for failing to register as a sex offender, 

State v. Cedric O Clacks, 2011AP338-CR, District 4, 12/22/11

court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Clacks: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity

Evidence held sufficient to prove contested, fourth element of identity theft (intentional representation user of personal identification document of another authorized to use it), § 943.201(2)(a) as party to the crime.

¶15      Specifically, Clacks contends that handing the credit card to a sales clerk to make a purchase and signing the electronic credit card slip cannot,

State v. Michael T. Ziller, 2011 WI App 164 (recommended for publication); for Ziller: Michael S. Holzman; case activity

¶11      On the basis of our review of the record in this case, we are satisfied that the circuit court properly exercised its discretion in sentencing Ziller.  The circuit court considered the three primary sentencing factors and noted them on the record.  See State v. Gallion,