On Point blog, page 26 of 26
Costs – payment for sexual assault examination
State v. Daniel E. Rohe, 230 Wis.2d 294, 602 N.W.2d 125 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Rohe: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate.
Issue: Whether costs for a sexual assault examination were properly taxable, where the examination neither produced any results nor was used at trial.
Holding: Because the examination was part of the state’s investigation and prosecution; and because the examiners were on the state’s witness list,
Costs – allocated per count, § 814.60(1)
State v. Lisa A. Carter, 229 Wis. 2d 200, 598 N.W.2d 619 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Carter: Paul G. LaZotte
Issue/Holding: The $20 fee for the clerk of court under § 814.60(1) is allocated on a per-count, rather than per-case, basis.
Restitution – Limitations — court’s competency to order refund
State v. James D. Minniecheske, 223 Wis.2d 493, 590 N.W.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Minniechske: Jane K. Smith
Issue: Whether the sentencing court possessed authority to order refund of money ($1500+) improperly seized from Minniecheske’s prison account to satisfy restitution.
Holding:
We conclude that the trial court correctly amended the judgment of conviction to remove the restitution obligation.[1] We further agree that,
Restitution — “Victim” — Police: As Crime Prevention Organization
State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
To define “crime prevention organization” to include law enforcement agencies would lead to absurd results. By ordering a defendant to make a contribution to a “crime prevention organization,” a court could order a defendant to repay internal operating expenses of a police department and routine operating expenses of the State Crime Laboratory or return drug “buy money”
Consecutive Sentences — No Authority to Impose, Relative to Jail Time as Condition of Probation in Another Case — Remedy of Resentencing
State v. Daron E. Maron, 214 Wis. 2d 384, 571 N.W.2d 454 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Maron: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding1:
… We conclude that § 973.15(2), Stats., does not give the trial court authority to order that the sentence be served consecutive to jail time already being served as a condition of probation. …
…
Subsequent amendment to § 973.15,
Restitution — Limitations — Bail-Bond Disbursement
William Olson v. Kaprelian, 202 Wis. 2d 377, 550 N.W.2d 712 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Olson: Terry W. Rose
Issue: Whether bail posted under a bond in a seprate criminal case may be forfeited in order to satisfy a restitution obligation.
Holding:
In regards to this jurisdictional question, Olson … argues that a trial court has no jurisdiction to simply issue an order that assigns funds directly from a bond to the crime victim.We agree and thus hold that the trial court’s order is void as a matter of law.
Restitution — Defenses — Civil Settlement (Setoff)
William Olson v. Kaprelian, 202 Wis. 2d 377, 550 N.W.2d 712 (Ct. App. 1996)
For Olson: Terry W. Rose
Issue/Holding:
The statutory section governing restitution allows a defendant to reduce civil damages awarded to the crime victim by amounts paid pursuant to a restitution order. See § 973.20(8), Stats. We read this statute to likewise enable a defendant to try to reduce the amount he or she owes because of a restitution award during settlement negotiations on the companion civil case.