On Point: 36. Sentencing

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….

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. Brian C. Wegner, 2000 WI App 231, 239 Wis.2d 96, 619 N.W.2d 289
For Wegner: Scott A. Szabrowicz

Issue: Whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion, in sentencing after revocation, by failing to consider primary sentencing factors.

Holding:

¶9 We conclude that when the same judge presides at the sentencing after revocation and the original sentencing, the judge does not have to restate the reasons supporting the original sentencing;

State v. Thomas W. Koeppen, 2000 WI App 121, 237 Wis.2d 418, 614 N.W.2d 530
For Koeppen: Richard L. Zaffiro

Issue/Holding: Level of community support” enjoyed by the defendant not a new factor justifying sentence reduction.

State v. Dione Wendell Haywood, 2009 WI App 178
For Haywood: Robert E. Haney

Issue/Holding: Asserted prosecutorial misconduct, in the form of misleading statements during allocution, is tested under State v. Wolff, 171 Wis. 2d 161, 167, 491 N.W.2d 498, 501 (Ct. App. 1992) (whether “what the prosecutor does has ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process’”),

State v. Thomas W. Koeppen, 2000 WI App 121, 237 Wis.2d 418, 614 N.W.2d 530
For Koeppen: Richard L. Zaffiro

Issue: Whether the repeater-qualifying convictions were inadequately proved merely because they weren’t made part of the appellate record.

Holding: “Even if the trial court did not include these documents in the appellate record, the documents’ existence at the time of sentencing is not negated because,