On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. James E. Cole, 2000 WI App 52, 233 Wis. 2d 577, 608 N.W.2d 432

Issue: Whether a sentence can be ordered to run “consecutive to revocation” when the defendant’s parole has not yet been revoked.

Holding: A court has authority, under Wis. Stat. § 973.15(2)(a), to make the current sentence consecutive to a revocation of parole, even though the revocation has not yet occurred.

State v. David Carneal White, 2000 WI App 147, 237 Wis.2d 699, 615 N.W.2d 667
For White: Jeffrey A. Kingsley

Issue: Whether a court has authority to stay a sentence until the defendant is released or discharged from an otherwise unrelated Ch. 980 commitment.

Holding: The purposes of § 971.17 NGI and Ch. 980 SVP commitments being similar (¶¶8-9), the reasoning of State v.

State v. David C. Liebnitz, 231 Wis.2d 272, 603 N.W.2d 208 (1999), on certification
For Liebnitz: Rex R. Anderegg.

Issue: Whether the defendant sufficiently admitted to an alleged repeater allegation so as to justify enhanced sentencing where, although he never disputed the allegation and in fact received the bargained-for sentence, he never distinctly admitted the repeater allegation.

Holding: Because the complaint and information both set forth the details of the repeater allegation along with the enhanced penalty;

State v. Timothy L. Olson, 226 Wis.2d 457, 595 N.W.2d 460 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Olson: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Holding:

Timothy L. Olson appeals from an order denying a postconviction motion for relief.  Olson seeks a 256-day sentence credit for the time he served in the Division of Intensive Sanctions (DIS) program before his probation was revoked and he was given a five-year prison sentence.  

State v. Daniel C. Tuescher, 226 Wis.2d 465, 595 N.W.2d 443 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Tuescher: David D. Cook

Issue/Holding: Tusecher’s conviction on one count, out of several counts with concurrent sentences, was vacated for new trial. He continued to serve the remaining sentences, and was ultimately convicted and sentenced on a lesser offense on the vacated count. The court holds that Tuescher is not entitled to sentence credit on the resentenced count for time served between vacating and resentencing.

State v. Richard J. Kenyon, 225 Wis.2d 657, 593 N.W.2d 491 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Kenyon: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: Employee Retirement Income Security Act trumps Victims’ Rights. Kenyon was convicted of stealing about $150,000, and was ordered to pay restitution by “voluntarily” withdrawing funds from his pension fund. The COA reverses, holding that ERISA’s preemption of state attempts to assign or alienate pension benefits prohibits this effort to “create[] an equitable exception to ERISA’s anti-alienation clause.”

State v. Laura Walters, 224 Wis.2d 897, 591 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Walters: Todd W. Bennett

Issue/Holding: Setoff is available to reduce the amount of special damages. The defendant has the burden of proving facts necessary to this defense. Since the victim here suffered general as well as special damages, Walters was therefore required to prove what part if any of a $25,000 insurance settlement went to special damages (given that the victim had also suffered general damages in an indeterminate amount).

State v. Laura Walters, 224 Wis.2d 897, 591 N.W.2d 874 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Walters: Todd W. Bennett

Issue/Holding: The COA refuses to acknowledge accord and satisfaction as a restitution defense. Restitution, the court reasons, “is not a claim which a defendant owns, as a civil claim is. It is a remedy that belongs to the State.” While a goal is to make the victim whole, liability for restitution is grounded “on the State’s penal goals that affect the defendant,

State v. Derrick L. Madlock, 230 Wis.2d 324, 602 N.W.2d 104 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Madlock: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether restitution may be ordered without a showing of causation or actual damages.

Holding: The record must show at least a minimal nexus between the defendant’s criminal conduct and the victim’s claimed damages, or the defendant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing.

State v. Nils V. Holmgren, 229 Wis.2d 358, 599 N.W.2d 876 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Holmgren: William E. Appel

Holding: Holmgren’s theft, related to unauthorized use of company’s credit card, gives rise to various restitution issues, all turning on the distinction between special and general damages. (Special damages — those which do not necessarily arise from the wrongful act “and represent the victim’s actual pecuniary losses” —