On Point: 6. Restitution

State of Wisconsin v. Mary E. Melstrom, 2023AP1176-CR, 2/17/26, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed a restitution award to cover the victim insurance company’s costs of investigating the cause of a house fire that was the subject of the defendant’s criminal charge but reversed the award for the victim’s attorney fees.

State v. Tate H. Batson, 2025AP136-CR, 2/12/26, District IV (ineligible for publication); case activity

Although Batson tries his best to poke holes in the judge’s discretionary decision, the deferential standard of review means those arguments uniformly fail.

State v. David T. Waits, 2023AP1592 and 2023AP1593, 12/23/25, District III (ineligible for publication); case activity

The COA affirmed an award of restitution to the victim of a hit and run although the defendant was not allowed to introduce evidence of the victim’s contributory negligence and the victim’s preexisting conditions aggravated her injuries.

State v. C.J.L.,  2024AP1917, 7/3/25, District IV (1-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

C.J.L. contests part of the restitution ordered in his juvenile case related to a theft and break in at a dance studio–restitution for a surveillance subscription purchased after the theft, and for damages to the studio’s dance floor. Because the juvenile statute, Wis. Stat. § 938.34(5)(a), permits restitution for physical injury to a person or damage to property only, the COA agrees with C.J.L. and reverses the restitution order.

State v. Daecorion J. Robinson, 2022AP2087-CR, 5/28/25, District I (not recommended for publication); case activity

In a rare “causal nexus” win, 2 judges in D1 agree that the circuit court’s order was infirm. Under the text of the restitution statute, Robinson’s aiding a felon does not make him liable for the consequences of that felon’s underlying criminal conduct.

State v. Eric J. Joling, 2023AP1023-CR, 12/11/24, District II (recommended for publication); case activity

Federal law prohibits subjecting social security disability insurance payments (SSDI) to “execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process.”  42 U.S.C. § 407(a).  In a decision recommended for publication, the Court of Appeals held that a circuit court may nevertheless use a defendant’s SSDI payments to calculate the ability to pay restitution. 

State v. Lynetta Lake, 2024AP115-CR, 11/12/24, District 1 (one-judge decision; ineligible for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Lake pleaded guilty to negligent operation of a motor vehicle and hit and run of an attended vehicle. Following a hearing, the circuit court ordered restitution. Lake filed a postconviction motion alleging ineffective assistance of counsel for failing to call two witnesses during the restitution hearing.

State v. Paul R. Noble, 2023AP1444-CR, 4/24/24, District II (one-judge decision, ineligible for publication); case activity

While Noble’s arguments on appeal appear to have substantial merit, the court of appeals declines to address the merits because the state abandoned the appeal and thereby conceded that “Noble’s arguments are correct.”

State v. M.L.J.N.L., 2021AP1437, 2/28/24, District IV (recommended for publication); case activity

In one of our first published decisions to address the impact of Marsy’s Law, COA accepts the agreed-upon position of both parties that Marsy’s Law does not alter the framework for assessing requests for juvenile restitution under § 938.34(5)(a). 

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.