≡ Menu

D. Type of punishment

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 }

Restitution — Defenses — Set-Off

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the defendant was entitled to set-off as a defense to restitution for theft by (home improvement) contractor, for work that was paid for by the contractor to a subcontractor. Holding: ¶18. We conclude that the trial court… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether attorney fees, incurred by the victims in seeking damages under the contract underlying this theft by contractor case, are subject to restitution. Holding: ¶29. Longmire contends the trial court erred because the “American Rule” requires litigants in… Read more

{ 0 comments }

State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether expenditures by victims to correct shoddy work done by defendant in theft by contractor case may be subject to restitution. Holding: ¶23. We conclude that these costs, incurred by the homeowners and admittedly arising out of… Read more

{ 0 comments }
RSS