On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. Anthony J. Leitner, 2002 WI 77, affirming 2001 WI App 172, 247 Wis. 2d 195, 633 N.W.2d 207
For Leitner: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the sentencing court erred in considering the facts of convictions expunged under § 973.015.

Holding:

¶46. If information about the underlying facts of an expunged conviction come from a source other than a government record,

State v. Patrick A. Saunders, 2002 WI 107, reconsideration denied, 2002 WI 119, reversing unpublished opinion
For Saunders: Beth Ermatinger Hanan

Issue: Whether an uncertified copy of the prior judgment of conviction may serve as part of the proof requirement of a repeater allegation that is not personally admitted by the defendant.

Holding: In the absence of the defendant’s personal admission to the prior conviction(s),

State v. John D. Williams, 2002 WI 1, affirming 2001 WI App 7, 241 Wis. 2d 1, 624 N.W.2d 164
For Williams: John A. Pray

Issue/Holding:

¶46. We must examine the entire sentencing proceeding to evaluate the prosecutor’s remarks. Upon reviewing the State’s comments in the context of the sentencing hearing, we conclude, as a matter of law, that the State stepped over the fine line between relaying information to the circuit court on the one hand and undercutting the plea agreement on the other hand.

State ex rel. Willie C. Simpson v. Schwarz, 2002 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/11/02

Issue: Whether spent on electronic monitoring while on probation supports sentence credit following revocation.

Holding: Because the probationer could not have been charged with escape for leaving electronic monitoring, he isn’t entitled to sentence credit for the time he spent on electronic monitoring. ¶¶31-33.

State v. Anthony J. Dentici, Jr., 2002 WI App 77, PFR filed 2/5/02
For Dentici: Joseph E. Redding

Issue/Holding:

¶1 … Dentici claims that he is entitled to twenty-five days’ credit pursuant to State v. Riske, 152 Wis. 2d 260, 448 N.W.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1989), because, after being sentenced to sixty days at the House of Correction as a condition of probation,

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.

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

Issue/Holding: Because record is clear that trial court ordered restitution, court of appeals refuses to recharacterize (and uphold) order as condition of probation:

¶25                        As a final argument, the State contends that even if W.L.’s wages are not recoverable under WIS. STAT. § 973.20, the circuit court could have properly required repayment of the lost wages as a condition of probation under WIS.

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

Issue/Holding: Wages lost by a stepparent’s accompanying the victim to court aren’t subject to restitution; lost wages are limited to those persons identified in § 973.20(5)(b). ¶¶22-23.

Issue/Holding: A stepparent is not victim for § 973.20(1r) restitution purposes, ¶¶17-19. (However, a stepparent may qualify as an “other person,” under § 973.20(5)(d),

State v. James N. Storlie, 2002 WI App 163
For Storlie: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the destruction of “stop sticks” caused by defendant’s flight from the police is properly subject to a restitution order.

Holding:

¶10…. (T)he government is entitled to restitution for losses incurred when it is a victim as a direct result of criminal conduct,

State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02
For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Reviewing court may address merits of attack on sentence based on inaccurate information, notwithstanding absence of contemporaneous objection. ¶25. It is appropriate here for the court to overlook waiver, where the state concedes that it can’t support the information now challenged; and defendant’s postconviction motion showed that information was inaccurate and also established a basis for believing that he didn’t have an adequate opportunity to refute the information.