≡ Menu

D. Type of punishment

Restitution — Nexus — Generally

State v. Mark R. Johnson, 2005 WI App 201 For Johnson: Jefren Olsen , SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶13      Second, before a trial court may order restitution “there must be a showing that the defendant’s criminal activity was a substantial factor in causing” pecuniary injury to the victim in a “but for” sense. Longmire, 272 Wis… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Restitution — Special Damages — Generally

State v. Mark R. Johnson, 2005 WI App 201 For Johnson: Jefren Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶12      First, restitution is limited to “special damages … which could be recovered in a civil action against the defendant for his or her conduct in the commission of a crime considered at sentencing.” Wis. Stat. § 973.20(5)(a). The… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Mark R. Johnson, 2005 WI App 201 For Johnson: Jefren Olsen , SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding1: Lost profits are “special damages,” and therefore subject to a restitution order, because the underlying causal criminal conduct could give rise to a civil action based on the torts of conversion and interference with prospective contractual relationships, ¶¶16-17… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Sentencing – Review – Consecutive Sentences

State v. Lonnie C. Davis, 2005 WI App 98 For Davis: Pamela Moorshead Issue/Holding: ¶24 Davis next contends that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it imposed consecutive sentences without an adequate explanation of why that was the minimum amount of time necessary.  We reject this claim.¶25      The trial court explained why the… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue/Holding: ¶17. Finally, Matke argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered, without explanation, that Matke’s present sentence be consecutive to any other sentences he was then serving. … ¶18. The sole infirmity that Matke cites… Read more

{ 0 comments }

Costs — Bail, as Satisfaction

State v. Ryan E. Baker, 2005 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/17/05 For Baker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The plain text of § 969.02(6) mandates that bail money be used to satisfy court costs, with no room for discretionary return to the depositor rather than payment of costs. ¶¶7-9. This is a misdemeanor, but the relevant… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. James L. Montroy, 2005  WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding: The sentencing court properly exercised discretion in denying eligibility for Earned Release, § 302.05(3), despite misperceiving at one point that defendant was statutorily ineligible: ¶17 … [A]t the December 6, 2004, [postconviction] hearing … [t]he court stated: Well… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶13. Restitution awarded under Wis. Stat. § 973.20(5)(a) is limited in two ways relevant to our present analysis. First, before a trial court may order restitution “there must be a showing that the defendant’s criminal activity was a substantial factor… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS