On Point

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. Miguel Angel Santana-Lopez, 2000 WI App 122, 237 Wis.2d 332, 613 N.W.2d 918
For Santana-Lopez: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: “We do not consider an argument mentioned only in a footnote to be adequately raised or preserved for appellate review,” ¶6 n.4.

Interesting that the holding itself happens to be contained in a footnote.

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. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court improperly precluded Oswald from raising an NGI plea.

Holding:

¶ 49. The decision whether to grant a defendant’s motion to change his or her plea from “not guilty” to “not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect”

State v. Eric Pletz, 2000 WI App 221, 239 Wis.2d 49, 619 N.W.2d 97
For Pletz: Michael J. Backes

Issue: Whether the state’s pretrial failure to disclose that its witness used the RRASOR screening instrument to evaluate Pletz violated his discovery rights.

Holding: Pletz waived any discovery objection by not promptly objecting, given that he was provided this information before the witness testified. ¶26. Moreover,

Edwin C. West v. Macht, 2000 WI App 134, 237 Wis. 2d 265, 614 N.W.2d 34

Issue: Whether living unit reassignment of a Ch. 980 subject was made in retaliation for his exercise of his constitutional right to petition on grievances.

Holding: A commitment subject has a protected interest against being punished for exercising first amendment rights, ¶15; however, those rights may be validly restricted if “reasonably related to legitimate therapeutic and institutional interests.”

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.