On Point blog, page 17 of 26
DNA Surcharge – Timeliness of Challenge
State v. Raymond Allen Nickel, 2010 WI App 161 (recommended for publication); pro se; State Resp.; Robert R. Henak, WACDL, Amicus Brief
Nickel’s challenge to his DNA surcharge was untimely, because made outside the direct appeal time limits:
¶5 When a defendant moves to vacate a DNA surcharge, the defendant seeks sentence modification. Pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 973.19, a defendant may move for sentence modification within ninety days after sentencing.
State v. Brandon G. Johnson, 2010AP233-CR, District 4, 10/14/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Johnson: Philip J. Brehm; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Restitution – Psychiatric Care – Sexual Assault
Johnson, 17, had sex with 14-year-old W.M.K., resulting in conviction for 3rd degree sexual assault. Restitution ($10k), awarded for W.M.K.’s 10-month residence at Thayer Learning Center, (described as “a boot camp, behavior modification experience”) satisfied “substantial factor”
State v. Brent S. Watling, 2009AP1727-CR, District 2, 8/11/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Watling: Margaret A. Maroney, Shelley M. Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Sentencing – Exercise of Discretion – Sex Offender Registration
The sentencing court properly exercised discretion in requiring Watling to register as a sex offender on his conviction for 4th-degree sexual assault, ¶¶7-15.
Registration requirements are set out in § 301.45.
Restitution – Settlement Agreement
State v. Theresa E. Palubicki, No. 2010AP555-CR, District 3
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Palubicki: Michael D. Petersen; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The burden of proving setoff rests with the defendant. Although Palubicki reached a settlement agreement with the hit-and-run victim, she did not meet her burden of proving that the agreement covered lost wages, therefore she is liable for them in restitution.
State v. Marquis N. Singleton, No. 2009AP002089-CR, District I, 6/23/10
court of appeals decision; pro se; Resp. Br.
Sentence Modification – DNA Surcharge
¶2 Singleton was sentenced on July 24, 2002, and the circuit court ordered, as a condition of his bifurcated sentence, that Singleton provide a DNA sample and pay the applicable surcharge.[1] Singleton’s sole challenge is made via a motion to modify his sentence under Wis. Stat. § 973.19 (2007-08), and is addressed only to the adequacy of the court’s explanation for imposition of the surcharge under Cherry,
Restitution: Federal Sentencing Court Authority to Order, After 90-Day Deadline, Where Only Amount Has Been Left Open
Dolan v. United States, USSC No. 09-367, 6/14/10
This case concerns the remedy for missing a statutory deadline. The statute in question focuses upon mandatory restitution for victims of crimes. It provides that “the court shall set a date for the final determination of the victim’s losses, not to exceed 90 days after sentencing.” 18 U. S. C. §3664(d)(5). We hold that a sentencing court that misses the 90-day deadline nonetheless retains the power to order restitution—at least where,
State v. Norbert Aaron Mathis, 2008AP2616-CRNM, Certification
Order for DNA sample and surcharge
Click here for certification order
For Mathis: Donna Odrzywolski
We [District IV] certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.61 (2007-08), to resolve a conflict among the districts of the court of appeals that has arisen as a result of our decision in State v. Cherry, 2008 WI App 80, ¶¶8-9, 312 Wis.
Restitution – Hearing – Procedure – Notice, Discovery
State v. Alberto Fernandez, 2009 WI 29, on certification
For Fernandez: Eileen A. Hirsch, Shelley M. Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶59 Fernandez additionally argues that the lack of advance written notice of the Dalka and CNR claims violated his due process rights. In response, the State contends that Fernandez’s due process rights were protected by the statute, which provides for “an opportunity to be heard,
Restitution – Limitations – Exercise of Discretion: Reimbursement to Insurance Company
State v. Alberto Fernandez, 2009 WI 29, on certification
For Fernandez: Eileen A. Hirsch, Shelley M. Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶61 Fernandez says the court erred by ordering full restitution to two insurance companies because a court is authorized to do so only where justice requires. Fernandez says that justice does not require a man who washes dishes for a living to reimburse insurance companies worth billions of dollars.
Restitution – Ability to Pay not Limited by Length of Sentence or Probation
State v. Alberto Fernandez, 2009 WI 29, on certification
For Fernandez: Eileen A. Hirsch, Shelley M. Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the holding of State v. Mark M. Loutsch, 2003 WI App 16, ¶25, “that the court order at sentencing an amount of restitution that it determines the defendant will be able to pay before the completion of the sentence,” is valid.