On Point: 36. Sentencing

State v. James D. Minniecheske, 223 Wis.2d 493, 590 N.W.2d 17 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Minniechske: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether the sentencing court possessed authority to order refund of money ($1500+) improperly seized from Minniecheske’s prison account to satisfy restitution.

Holding:

We conclude that the trial court correctly amended the judgment of conviction to remove the restitution obligation.[1]  We further agree that,

State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

To define “crime prevention organization” to include law enforcement agencies would lead to absurd results. By ordering a defendant to make a contribution to a “crime prevention organization,” a court could order a defendant to repay internal operating expenses of a police department and routine operating expenses of the State Crime Laboratory or return drug “buy money”

Scott A. Magnuson, 220 Wis. 2d 468, 583 N.W.2d 843 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Magnuson: T. Gregory Amann

Issue/Holding:

We conclude that Magnuson is judicially estopped from asserting that the two twelve-year concurrent sentences are excessive. Although Magnuson contends he did not agree to the recommended sentence, the record belies his claim. Magnuson’s probation officer set forth the recommendation in the presentence investigation report (PSI).

State v. Crystal L. Bizzle, 222 Wis. 2d 100, 585 N.W. 899 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Bizzle: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Bizzle argues that the sentencing court erred in concluding that she required extensive rehabilitation. … First, her successful completion of an educational program, after sentencing, is not evidence that the court acted unreasonably or was not justified in concluding that she required extensive rehabilitation.

State v. Pablo Cruz Santana, 220 Wis. 2d 674, 584 N.W.2d 151 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Santana: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

In passing sentence, the trial court addressed each of the primary factors, but chiefly relied on the seriousness of the offense and its continuing impact on the victim. …

Santana claims, however, that the judge’s comments also evinced an impermissible consideration of how the sentence imposed would be perceived by the public,

State v. Frank Miles, 221 Wis. 2d 56, 584 N.W.2d 703 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Miles: Craig W. Albee

Issue/Holding: Prior drug conviction is not element of crime of second or subsequent drug offense, § 161.48(2) (1993-94), which elevates what would otherwise be misdemeanor to felony possession:

Miles fails to recognize the distinction between the two types of penalty enhancers. The first type of penalty enhancer concerns facts or circumstances related to the underlying crime which alter the substantive nature of the charged offense.

Debra L. Van Riper, 222 Wis. 2d 197, 586 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Van Riper: Megan L. DeVore

Issue/Holding:

Because day care centers provide recreational and social services activities for children, they are a subset of “youth centers” and come within the definition of places listed in § 961.49(2), Stats. The protection of children, who congregate at day care centers, and are very vulnerable to the dangers associated with drug trafficking,

State v. Damone J. Block, 222 Wis. 2d 586, 587 N.W.2d 914 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Block: James M. Weber

Issue/Holding: The persistent repeater scheme survives equal protection challenge.

Block concedes that the persistent repeater statute deserves only the rational basis test.  He argues that there are no reasonable or practical grounds for the manner in which the legislature has chosen serious crimes under § 939.62(2m), 

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Requiring any defendant to demonstrate that the marital relationship actually influenced the writer’s impressions and recommendations would present an insurmountable hurdle to any defendant attempting to challenge a PSI. The reasons for an agent’s impression may operate at a subjective level of which the report’s author is unaware.

State v. David W. Suchocki, 208 Wis. 2d 509, 561 N.W.2d 332 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Suchocki: Martha A. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

Our supreme court has acknowledged the importance of the PSI to the sentencing process. See State v. McQuay, 154 Wis.2d 116, 130-31, 452 N.W.2d 377, 383 (1990). The integrity of the sentencing process demands that the report be accurate,