On Point

State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, reversed on other grounds, 2003 WI 89
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t waive a facially valid multiplicity claim. ¶13.The supreme court subsequently stated: “Because Davison’s multiplicity objection fails on the merits, we need not and do not decide whether, by pleading guilty, he waived his right to raise this claim,”

State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202
For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to portions of closing argument didn’t waive right to challenge them on appeal, where defendant obtained a “definitive pretrial ruling” which “served to preserve (his) position for appeal.” ¶25 n. 9.

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: Whether delay of 18 months in setting restitution amount deprived court of jurisdiction to enter the restitution order.

Holding: Statutory time limits for setting restitution are regulatory, not jurisdictional, and may be exceeded when there is a valid reason and no prejudice. ¶8. A valid reason existed here: at sentencing Johnson agreed to a delay in setting restitution;

State v. Jeffrey Kenneth Krohn, 2002 WI App 96

Issue: Whether the remedy for a conceded violation in following statutory procedure, including time limit, in determining restitution amount is remand for a restitution hearing under proper procedure.

Holding:

¶13 While we accept Krohn’s challenge to the circuit court’s restitution order, we reject his attempt to prevent the court from properly determining restitution and issuing the appropriate restitution order.

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. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶27 … Here, Grindemann did object to the prosecutor’s mention of uncharged offenses at sentencing, but the objection was based on the lack of evidence ‘properly before the court,’ not on any claim that the State was violating either the terms or the ‘spirit’ of the plea agreement.

State v. Douglas J. Lasky, 2002 WI App 126, PFR filed 5/16/02
For Lasky: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Claim of “statutory double jeopardy,” § 939.71, not barred by guilty plea waiver rule; court therefore may consider merits of whether elements of federal bank robbery conviction are the same, and therefore preclude prosecution of, state armed robbery.