On Point: D. Type of punishment

State v. David S. Leighton, 2000 WI App 156, 237 Wis.2d 709, 616 N.W.2d 126
For Leighton: Daniel Snyder

Issue/Holding:

¶55 WISCONSIN STAT. § 973.20, governing restitution in criminal cases, “provides that a trial court ‘shall order the defendant to make full or partial restitution under this section to any victim of a crime,’ when imposing a sentence or probation for any crime.” State v.

State v. Aaron Evans, 2000 WI App 178, 238 Wis.2d 411, 617 N.W.2d 220
For Evans: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the sentencing court may allow the department of corrections to determine the amount of restitution.

Holding: Delegating determination of restitution to DOC isn’t authorized by statute and is therefore inappropriate: “Restitution is a statutory process and where, as here, a court constructs its own procedure to determine and set restitution-and that procedure is not authorized by the applicable and controlling law,

State v. Carl Simonetto, 2000 WI App 17, 232 Wis.2d 315, 606 N.W.2d 275
For Simonetto: Christopher L. Hartley

Issue: Whether the trial court erred in holding open restitution until certain victims could be identified.

Holding: “Section 973.20(13)(c), Stats., creates a ninety-day maximum hold-open period for entry of restitution after a sentence is imposed.” ¶10. (Note: The holding is probably more limited than the quote implies.

State v. Chad J. Knoll, 2000 WI App 135, 237 Wis.2d 384, 614 N.W.2d 20

Issue: Whether contributory negligence is a defense to restitution.

Holding: ¶¶16, 17:

Restitution is not a claim that is owned by an individual but a remedy of the State…. To allow a defendant who has already been convicted of a crime to focus on the action of a victim to avoid restitution defeats this purpose because it permits him to evade responsibility for his own actions….

State v. Freeman Canady, 2000 WI App 87, 234 Wis. 2d 261, 610 N.W.2d 147
For Canady: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a defendant, convicted of resisting arrest, can be ordered to pay restitution for damage caused by a police officer in the course of subduing him.

Holding: Because the damage was a natural consequence of the defendant’s resisting, the defendant was a substantial factor in causing that damage and can be required to make restitution for it.

State v. James E. Cole, 2000 WI App 52, 233 Wis. 2d 577, 608 N.W.2d 432

Issue: Whether a sentence can be ordered to run “consecutive to revocation” when the defendant’s parole has not yet been revoked.

Holding: A court has authority, under Wis. Stat. § 973.15(2)(a), to make the current sentence consecutive to a revocation of parole, even though the revocation has not yet occurred.

State v. David Carneal White, 2000 WI App 147, 237 Wis.2d 699, 615 N.W.2d 667
For White: Jeffrey A. Kingsley

Issue: Whether a court has authority to stay a sentence until the defendant is released or discharged from an otherwise unrelated Ch. 980 commitment.

Holding: The purposes of § 971.17 NGI and Ch. 980 SVP commitments being similar (¶¶8-9), the reasoning of State v.

State v. Richard J. Kenyon, 225 Wis.2d 657, 593 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kenyon: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: Employee Retirement Income Security Act trumps Victims’ Rights. Kenyon was convicted of stealing about $150,000, and was ordered to pay restitution by “voluntarily” withdrawing funds from his pension fund. The COA reverses, holding that ERISA’s preemption of state attempts to assign or alienate pension benefits prohibits this effort to “create[] an equitable exception to ERISA’s anti-alienation clause.”

State v. Laura Walters, 224 Wis.2d 897, 591 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Walters: Todd W. Bennett

Issue/Holding: Setoff is available to reduce the amount of special damages. The defendant has the burden of proving facts necessary to this defense. Since the victim here suffered general as well as special damages, Walters was therefore required to prove what part if any of a $25,000 insurance settlement went to special damages (given that the victim had also suffered general damages in an indeterminate amount).

State v. Laura Walters, 224 Wis.2d 897, 591 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Walters: Todd W. Bennett

Issue/Holding: The COA refuses to acknowledge accord and satisfaction as a restitution defense. Restitution, the court reasons, “is not a claim which a defendant owns, as a civil claim is. It is a remedy that belongs to the State.” While a goal is to make the victim whole, liability for restitution is grounded “on the State’s penal goals that affect the defendant,