On Point: D. Type of punishment

State v. Mark M. Loutsch, 2003 WI App 16, PFR filed 1/17/03; X-PFR filed 1/31/03
For Loutsch: Charles B. Vetzner

Issue/Holding:

¶20. When the trial court has the authority to order restitution for a loss, the court’s decision to order restitution in a particular amount is committed to the trial court’s discretion. Holmgren, 229 Wis. 2d at 366.

State v. Oscar A. Rash, 2003 WI App 32, PFR filed 2/25/03
For Rash: Peter Koneazny, Diana Felsmann, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the restitution order for damage to the victim’s car was supported by sufficient causation, where the defendant abducted the victim for 20-30 minutes, during which time the unattended and unlocked car was broken into by unknown actor(s).

Holding:

¶6. “Before restitution can be ordered”

State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove

Issue/Holding: Ross was convicted of a pattern of racketeering involving securities fraud contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 551.41(2) and 946.82(2), (3), (4) and 946.83 (WOCCA). This pattern of racketeering, based in fraudulent activities occurring in Wisconsin and contrary to the securities law, also affected investors in other parts of the country. By claiming at various times that the securities he was selling were registered in Wisconsin (which implied disclosure) when they were not,

State v. Mark M. Loutsch, 2003 WI App 16, PFR filed 1/17/03; X-PFR filed 1/31/03
For Loutsch: Charles B. Vetzner

Issue/Holding:

¶12. The distinction between general and special damages as relevant to Wis. Stat. § 973.20(5)(a) is well established. “General damages” under this statute are those that compensate the victim for damages such as pain and suffering, anguish or humiliation, while “special damages”

State v. Mark M. Loutsch, 2003 WI App 16, PFR filed 1/17/03; X-PFR filed 1/31/03
For Loutsch: Charles B. Vetzner

Issue/Holding:

¶25. Read together, these sections plainly contemplate 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-in this case, during the term of imprisonment and subsequent extended supervision and probation.

State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

¶22. Ramuta complains that the cumulative terms of initial confinement-thirty-five years, until he turns seventy-six-are excessive. He claims that the trial court did not adequately explain why the sentences for all but one of his crimes should be, to use Ramuta’s word,

State v. Bruce J. Kuechler, 2003 WI App 245
For Kuechler: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: In sentencing for OWI, “it was not error for the court to seek guidance from the local guidelines” in determining the fine on an OWI sentence. ¶10, citing State v. Jorgensen, 2003 WI 105, ¶¶2, 27, __ Wis. 2d __, 667 N.W.2d 318,

State v. Bruce J. Kuechler, 2003 WI App 245
For Kuechler: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶11. Second, Kuechler argues that “[e]ven if the size of the fine could be based exclusively on a guideline recommendation, the court here failed to give adequate reasons for choosing the more severe of two alternative guidelines.” We disagree. The court exercised appropriate discretion when it chose to impose a fine based on the guidelines that highlighted aggravating factors rather than on the guidelines that highlighted mitigating factors.

State v. Bruce J. Kuechler, 2003 WI App 245
For Kuechler: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶13. Fourth, Kuechler contends that the trial court imposed the fine without first ascertaining his ability to pay. We agree. Because Kuechler timely raised the issue of ability to pay in his postconviction motion, the trial court had a duty to make a determination on that issue.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Where restitution was for counseling expenses, Johnson failed to show good cause for discovery of her counseling records. ¶¶28-30.