On Point: D. Type of punishment

State v. Jeremy T. Greene, 2008 WI App 100, PFR filed 7/14/08
For Greene: Kristen D. Schipper

Issue/Holding: Restitution order amendment, directing DOC to disburse funds from the prisoner’s account, did not violate double jeopardy although the amendment occurred three years after the original order:

¶16      Greene’s double jeopardy argument focuses on the fact that DOC, in applying the original restitution order, did not distribute funds from his accounts to pay restitution in the three years prior to the entry of the amended restitution order.

State v. William Agosto, 2008 WI App 149, PFR filed 10/21/08
For Agosto: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The defendant’s mother, who posted subsequently-forfeited cash bail, is a “victim” for restitution purposes:

¶8        …

• Agosto committed the “crime” of bail-jumping. He pled guilty and the circuit court entered a judgment convicting him of that crime.
• As a result of that crime,

State v. Anthony Houston Lee, 2008 WI App 185
For Lee: Carl W. Chessir

Issue/Holding:

¶11      As noted, Wis. Stat. § 973.20 authorizes a trial court to order restitution to victims of a “[c]rime considered at sentencing,” which includes “any crime for which the defendant was convicted and any read-in crime.” Sec. 973.20(1g)(a) & (1r). We conclude that this language is clear and unambiguous, and that it requires us to reverse the restitution order.

State v. Ray Shawn Cherry, 2008 WI App 80
For Cherry: John T. Wasielewski

Issue/Holding:

¶5        The statutes governing this issue are clear. If a trial court sentences a defendant to a felony involving a sex crime contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 940.225, 948.02(1) or (2) 948.025, or 948.085, the trial court must order the defendant to pay the $250 surcharge for the DNA sample.

State v. Ray Shawn Cherry, 2008 WI App 80
For Cherry: John T. Wasielewski

Issue: Whether the sentencing court properly exercised discretion in imposing a DNA surcharge, where it misconstrued such action as mandatory rather than permissive and ignored the defendant’s prior such assessment.

Holding:

¶9        We hold that in assessing whether to impose the DNA surcharge, the trial court should consider any and all factors pertinent to the case before it,

State v. Antonio M. Hall, 2007 WI App 168

For Hall: Michael D. Kaiser

Issue/Holding:

¶17   From our examination of these statutory provisions, we find no ambiguity in the relevant language and conclude that the provisions of Wis. Stat. §§ 973.01(3g), 973.01(3m) and 302.113(9)(am) express a clear intent to restrict the sentencing discretion of the reconfinement court at a reconfinement hearing;

State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding: The sentencing court satisfied Gallion’s required linkage:

¶11      … Here, the court explained that it did not consider Thexton’s conduct so serious that it required Thexton to be incarcerated for the length of time that might be appropriate for other sex offenders,

State v. Ahern Ramel, 2007 WI App 271
For Ramel: Wm. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶14      A fine that an offender has the ability to pay may satisfy sentencing objectives the trial court has found to be material and relevant to the particular defendant. See id. Here, however, with no explanation from the sentencing court of how the fine imposed advanced those objectives,

State v. Kathy J. Johnson, 2007 WI App 41
For Johnson: Jeremy Perri, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether DOC policy, for inmates under sentence commencing prior to July 26, 2003, to take no position on an ERP petition constitutes approval of the petition under Wis. Stat. § 302.05(3)(e).

Holding:

¶8        Wisconsin Stat. § 302.05(3)(e) governs inmate petitions for the determination of eligibility for the ERP for inmates sentenced prior to the effective date of § 302.05, 

State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶72      Wisconsin Stat. § 973.06 permits the court to impose a lengthy list of costs upon an unsuccessful defendant. At sentencing, the court may require a probationer to reimburse the county or the state, as applicable, “for any costs for legal representation . . . for the defense of the case.”