On Point: D. Type of punishment

State v. J.A.J., 2022AP2066, 11/14/23, District I (ineligible for publication); case activity

In a noteworthy juvenile appeal, COA rejects a novel argument highlighting the dysfunctional nature of our juvenile justice system as caused by the “closure” of Lincoln Hills.

State v. Jonathon S. Geiger, 2022AP1270-CR, District III, 7/11/23, not recommended for publication; case activity (briefs available)

Geiger argues the circuit court erroneously ordered him to pay extradition costs in connection with a sentencing after revocation hearing. COA rejects his statutory construction arguments and affirms.

State v. Aman Deep Singh, 2022AP1202-04, District I, 7/5/23, 1-judge decision ineligible for publication; case activity (including briefs)

In a somewhat messy pro se appeal, the court of appeals agrees that the circuit court improperly required Singh to reimburse attorney’s fees but rejects his remaining claims.

State v. Corey T. Rector, 2023 WI 41, 5/23/23 affirming a case certified by the court of appeals, 2020AP1213; case activity (including briefs)

Rector pleaded to five counts of possessing child pornography in a single case. He’d never been convicted of anything before. The sentencing judge ordered that he be placed on the sex offender registry until 15 years after the end of his sentence or supervision. The Department of Corrections then wrote the judge to say that, in its view, any two or more convictions of registry-eligible sex offenses trigger mandatory registration for life. The judge stuck to his guns and reiterated the 15-year registry requirement. The state appealed, and the court of appeals certified the case. The state supreme court now holds, 4-3, that Rector is not required to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.

State v. Jeffrey W. Butler, 2021AP2212-CR, 1/11/23, District 2 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

At Butler’s restitution hearing, the circuit court expressed frustration and disappointment that neither party presented any documentation regarding a disputed restitution claim. The court stated, “I have nothing other than testimony saying [the victim’s] done all this stuff and Googled it and she doesn’t bring in any receipts.” The court continued: “Nothing, I have nothing…[s]o the court is left with, based on testimony, what’s a reasonable amount of restitution…” The court then concluded, “I’ll put $500 toward clothing.” Butler appealed and the court of appeals affirms, holding that the victim’s testimony alone is sufficient to support the restitution award.

State v. Junior L. Williams-Holmes, petition for review of a published court of appeals decision granted 11/16/22; case activity (including PFR, PFR response, and briefs)

Issue presented (from the defendant’s PFR)

Can a circuit court use its statutory authority to modify conditions of probation and extended supervision to regulate the day-to-day affairs of individuals on supervision, contrary to statutes conferring on the Department of Corrections the exclusive authority to administer probation?

State v. Mark J. Gahart, 2022 WI App 61; case activity (including briefs)

The court of appeals holds that driving while intoxicated with a minor passenger is not a victimless crime: the minor passenger is a victim for purposes of the restitution statute.

State v. C.G., 2022 WI 60, 7/7/22, affirming a published court of appeals decision, 2018AP2205; case activity

C.G. has the masculine legal name her parents gave her when she was born. When she was 15 years old she committed a sexual assault. At the time she was identifying as a male, but during and after the pendency of her juvenile case she began to transition to female. She wants to change her legal name to reflect her gender. But in Wisconsin, those on the registry are forbidden to change their names. C.G.–who is primarily identified by the pseudonym “Ella” in this confidential juvenile case–argued that forcing her to retain a masculine legal name violates her First Amendment right to free speech, and her Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Four justices disagree.

State ex rel. DeLorean Bryson v. Kevin Carr, 2022 WI App 34; case activity (including briefs)

A few months ago the court of appeals decided Ortiz v. Carr, holding (with a number of important caveats) that DOC may not take a greater percentage of an inmate’s wages for restitution than the circuit court has ordered–if the circuit court has ordered a specific percentage. Here, the court applies similar logic to obligations other than restitution. It holds that DOC has the authority to set a percentage rate for the crime lab surcharge and the DNA surcharge, but that the circuit court has the authority to set a different rate for collection of court fees. It does not decide who has authority over the victim-witness surcharge, because DOC did not appeal the circuit court’s determination of that question (which was that DOC has the authority to set the percentage, but that its new policy of taking 50 percent violates the administrative rules it earlier promulgated).

Victor Ortiz, Jr. v. Kevin A. Carr, 2022 WI App 16; case activity (including briefs)

Attorneys Jason Luczak and Jorge Fragoso of Gimbel, Reilly, Geurin & Brown generously took this case pro bono. And now Jorge offers this guest post on their defense win:

Prison inmate (and hero to institutionalized persons) Victor Ortiz filed a petition for writ of certiorari seeking to limit the percentage of his income diverted for the payment of restitution. He won. The court of appeals ordered the Department of Corrections to limit its withholdings to 25% of Ortiz’s wages, half of what the Department sought.