On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. David W. Oakley, 2000 WI 37, 234 Wis. 2d 528, 609 N.W.2d 786, reversing State v. Oakley, 226 Wis. 2d 437, 594 N.W.2d 827 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Oakley: Timothy T. Kay

Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court may require payment of an old, unpaid fine that was imposed in a prior sentence as a condition of probation for a new conviction when violation of the condition of probation exposes the defendant to incarceration in county jail for more than six months.”

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

Issue/Holding: In setting parole eligibility date trial court need not separately refer to primary factors used in imposing sentence. ¶¶52-53.

State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42
For Warbelton: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      …. The legislature has the authority to designate a prior conviction as a penalty enhancer rather than an element of the offense. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 246. Although the legislature is permitted to designate a prior conviction as a penalty enhancer,

State v. Robert John Prihoda, 2000 WI 123, 239 Wis. 2d 244, 618 N.W.2d 857, affirming unpublished decision
For Prihoda: Timothy T. Kay

Issue1: “(W)hether the office of the clerk of circuit court may correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a written judgment of conviction without prior court approval.” ¶3.

Holding1: ¶5:

(W)e conclude that the office of the clerk of circuit court does not have the authority to correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a written judgment of conviction.

State v. Warrick D. Floyd, 2000 WI 14, 232 Wis. 2d 767, 606 N.W.2d 155, on certification
For Floyd: David D. Leeper

Issue: Whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit under Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1) for time spent in custody on a charge that is dismissed and read-in at sentencing.

Holding: Pre-trial confinement on a charge dismissed and read in at sentencing is related to the sentenced offense and therefore qualifies for credit:

¶31  In limiting the statute’s scope,

State v. Thomas W. Jackson, 233 Wis.2d 231, 607 N.W.2d 338 (Ct. App. 2000)
For Jackson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit on each consecutive sentence.

Holding: Credit is allotted only toward the first of consecutive sentences.

While on probation in Fond du Lac, Jackson was arrested on new charges in Dodge, where he was held on both the new charges and a probation hold.

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….