Weekly Case Digests — Oct. 24-28, 2016

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Digests

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Donald Lee McDonald v. George Adamson

Case No.: 15-1305

Officials: BAUER, POSNER, and MANION, Circuit Judges

Focus: 1^st Amendment – Freedom of Religion

In 2013, Illinois state prison inmate Donald McDonald filed what should have been a typical federal constitutional suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. McDonald alleged that Defendants Warden Marcus Hardy, Assistant Warden Daryl Edwards, and Chaplain George Adamson were denying his First Amendment free exercise rights as a practicing Muslim. He sought only injunctive relief in the district court.    McDonald’s case hit a procedural snag because three years earlier he had filed a claim for damages based on the same facts in the Illinois Court of Claims. More than two years later, when he had received no decision from the Court of Claims, he filed this case pro se in the district court. After the Court of Claims denied McDonald’s request for relief, the district court dismissed his federal complaint as barred by res judicata. On appeal, defendants concede that McDonald’s suit is not barred by res judicata. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand for proceedings in conformity with this opinion. We express no opinion regarding the merits of defendants’ remaining arguments on appeal, which are not properly before the court at this stage.

Reversed and Remanded

Full Text

Case Name: Jocelyn Chatham v. Randy Davis

Case No.: 14-3318

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and BAUER and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Deliberate Indifference – 8^th Amendment Violation – Motion to Amend Complaint

Marvin McDonald died after suffering an asthma attack while he was an inmate at Pinckneyville Correctional Center, an Illinois prison. His estate, administered by Jocelyn Chatham, sued the prison’s warden, Wexford Health Services (a private corporation contracted to run the prison’s healthcare unit), a prison doctor and nurse, and several prison guards under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Chatham claimed that the defendants were deliberately indifferent to McDonald’s serious medical needs, violating his rights under the Eighth Amendment. A magistrate judge entered summary judgment for the warden and Wexford. The other claims went to trial, and a jury found for the remaining defendants. Chatham now appeals, challenging the order granting summary judgment for the warden and Wexford. She also challenges the denial of her motions for leave to amend her complaint, for discovery sanctions, and for a new trial. We affirm. The magistrate judge was right to enter summary judgment for the warden and Wexford. Chatham did not produce evidence to support a reasonable inference that the warden consciously disregarded a substantial risk of harm to McDonald. Nor did she have evidence showing that a Wexford policy, practice, or custom caused a constitutional injury. Finally, the judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to allow leave to amend, impose a discovery sanction, or grant a new trial.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Eric T. Alston v. Judy P. Smith

Case No.: 16-1308

Officials: BAUER, POSNER, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Due Process – Bias

Petitioner‐appellant, Eric Alston, challenged the revocation of his probation by an administrative law judge (ALJ), claiming that certain information the ALJ learned prior to his revocation hearing created a risk of bias in violation of his due process rights. Alston’s appeal was denied by the Administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals, the Dane County Circuit Court, and finally the Wisconsin Court of Appeals. After the Wisconsin Supreme Court declined to review the case, Alston filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court. The district court denied the petition, holding that the Wisconsin Court of Appeals was not unreasonable in concluding that there was no impermissibly high risk of bias. We affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Cbeyond Communications, LLC v. Brien J. Sheahan, et al

Case No.: 16-1237

Officials: POSNER, EASTERBROOK, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Interconnection Agreement – Illinois Commerce Commission

Appellant files complaint against respondent for allegedly overcharging customers, to no avail.

“So we can’t find a violation of federal law by the Illinois Commerce Commission or AT&T Illinois. All we discern is a dispute over a price term in a contract, and the resolution of such a dispute, as of Cbeyond’s other state‐law claims, is a matter for state rather than federal law. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., Inc. v. Global NAPS Illinois, Inc., 551 F.3d 587, 591 (7th Cir. 2008); Illinois Bell Telephone Co. v. Worldcom Technologies, Inc., 179 F.3d 566, 572, 574 (7th Cir. 1999). Although a federal district court can resolve state‐law disputes under its supplemental jurisdiction if (as in this case) it has original juris‐ diction (in this case because of Cbeyond’s claims), see 28 U.S.C. § 1367, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the state‐law claims in this case would require us first to decide that the state (Illinois) cannot invoke its sovereign immunity—a doubtful proposition in light of MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 168 F.3d 315, 320 (7th Cir. 1999), where we said that it was “clear that … federal courts may review a state commission’s actions with respect to an agreement only for compliance with the requirements of § 251 and § 252 of the Telecommunications Act, and not for compliance with state law” (emphasis added). And state sovereign immunity to one side, Cbeyond has imposed an excessive and unnecessary burden on the district court by bringing this sloppy lawsuit, and should not be permitted to impose further on the district court or our court.”

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Becky Holman

Case No.: 15-3414

Officials: FLAUM, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges

Focus: Sentencing – Court Error

Becky Holman pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute heroin and was initially sentenced to thirty-six months in prison. She appealed, and for reasons unrelated to this appeal, we vacated Holman’s sentence and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the district court sentenced Holman to thirty-three months’ imprisonment. Holman now appeals, arguing that the district court procedurally erred at resentencing by lengthening her prison term to promote rehabilitation from her heroin addiction. For the reasons that follow, we affirm the district court’s sentence.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Kathleen A. Wagner v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al

Case No.: 15-2294

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, ROVNER, Circuit Judge, and BLAKEY, District Judge.

Focus: Deficient complaint

Appellant Kathleen Wagner appeals the decision of the district court granting judgment on the pleadings in favor of Appellees Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Barr Pharmaceuticals and Barr Laboratories. For the reasons explained below, the decision of the district court is affirmed.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Shannon Volling et al v. Kurtz Paramedic Services, Inc.

Case No.: 15-3572

Officials: FLAUM, MANION, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Retaliation

Plaintiffs Shannon Volling and Allen Springer brought federal and state retaliation claims against Antioch Rescue Squad (“ARS”) and its subcontractor, Kurtz Paramedic Services, Inc. (“Kurtz”). Plaintiffs allege the companies wrongfully refused to hire them as emergency medical technicians (“EMTs”) because of plaintiffs’ earlier complaints alleging sexual harassment against ARS and Metro Paramedic Services, Inc. (“Metro”). Plaintiffs settled with ARS, and Kurtz moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ claim. The district court dismissed the case with prejudice. We affirm, in part, and reverse, in part.

Affirmed in Part

Reversed in Part

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Eric Tapley v. Andrew Chambers, et al

Case No.: 15-3013

Officials: FLAUM, KANNE, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Request for Review – Failure to Provide Record

Plaintiff-appellant Eric Tapley, along with William Hosea and Clifford Pugh, request that we review the district court’s decisions in two different cases, one from 2012 (numbered 12-cv-1339) and the other from 2015 (numbered 15-cv-1051). Yet they failed to provide the record from the 2012 case on appeal. For that reason, we dismiss the appeal of that case. We address the merits of the 2015 case only—and we affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Lend Lease (US) Construction Inc., v. Administrative Employer Services, Inc. and Technology Insurance Company, Inc.,

Case No.: 16-1294; 16-1739

Officials: POSNER, RIPPLE, and ROVNER, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Diversity Action – Insurance – Workers Compensation

Appellant files diversity suit seeking reimbursement of deductible paid in workers compensation case.

“Lend Lease alleges that the four injured workers were in‐ sured both by Starr and by TIC, and if this is right there would be an argument for splitting the workers’ compensa‐ tion benefits between the two insurers—and indeed we learned at oral argument that Starr has filed its own lawsuit against AES and TIC. See Home Insurance Co. v. Cincinnati Insurance Co., 821 N.E.2d 269, 316 (Ill. 2004) (“Contribution as it pertains to insurance law is an equitable principle aris‐ ing among coinsurers … and is only available where the con‐ current policies insure the same entities, the same interests, and the same risks.”) (emphasis added). But that’s not this case; and in this case Lend Lease is not asking for a split be‐ tween coinsurers—what good would that do it? Instead it argues that because it is a policyholder that paid a deducti‐ ble in conformity to the Starr policy, it is entitled to contribu‐ tion, or in the alternative to indemnification, from TIC, in the amount of $500,000, which would erase Lend Lease’s de‐ ductible. Had it not been for the deductible, Starr would have had to pay the entire workers’ compensation benefits due the injured employees, so it saved money—but so did Lend Lease, though probably less than the deductible. For the deductible, by reducing Starr’s risk, doubtless had re‐ duced the insurance premiums charged Lend Lease by Starr, by reducing Starr’s potential liability to workers injured while employed on Lend Lease’s construction project. Any‐ way, Lend Lease made a deal with Starr and is bound by it.”

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Stephen D. Wesbrook, PH.D. v. Karl J. Ulrich, M.D. et al

Case No.: 15-3870

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and KANNE and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges

Focus: Tortious Interference – Employment

This appeal presents issues under Wisconsin law on the scope of tort remedies a fired at-will employee might have not against his employer but against individual supervisors and co-workers. Plaintiff Dr. Stephen Wesbrook, a former employee of the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation, brought this lawsuit against Dr. Edward Belongia, a former colleague, and Dr. Karl Ulrich, the chief executive officer of the Marshfield Clinic. Wesbrook contends that Belongia and Ulrich tortiously interfered with his at-will employment, engineering his termination by publishing defamatory statements about him to the Marshfield Clinic board of directors. The district court granted summary judgment to the defendants. Wesbrook has appealed. Wisconsin tort law governs this case, which is within the federal courts’ diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332. The undisputed facts show that the defendants’ statements about the plaintiff were true or substantially true and therefore privileged. Under Wisconsin law, an at-will employee cannot recover from former co-workers and supervisors for tortious interference on the basis of their substantially truthful statements made within the enterprise, no matter the motives underlying those statements. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Kevin W. Culp et al v. Lisa Madigan, et al

Case No.: 15-3738

Officials: BAUER, POSNER, and MANION, Circuit Judges.

Focus: 2^nd Amendment Rights – Concealed Carry

The plaintiffs in this case, nonresidents of Illinois each of whom has a concealed-carry license from his home state, travel to Illinois whether on business or for family or other reasons and want, while they are in Illinois, to be allowed to carry a firearm even if they are not within the exceptions to the restrictions on nonresident gun carrying just listed, but are not allowed to do so because they aren’t residents of states that have firearm laws substantially similar to Illinois’. They argue that Illinois’ refusal to issue concealed-carry licenses to them violates Article IV of, and the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to, the Constitution. The district judge declined to issue a preliminary injunction, precipitating this appeal.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Heartland Alliance National Immigrant Justice Center v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Case No.: 16-1840

Officials: POSNER, FLAUM, and MANION, Circuit Judges

Focus: Withholding Information

Appellant fails to show that government error was willfully made in failing to provide information when requested

“We learn in the Center’s reply brief that its primary con‐ cern is not with names but with the Tier III category itself, for it says for example that “the designation of Tier III organ‐ izations is often doubtful.” It hopes that if it can obtain the names of all the organizations—its goal in this litigation—it will be able to discredit some or perhaps many of them. Deeply distrustful of the U.S. government, by the tone and content of its briefs the Center signals its disbelief that the government has secrets worth keeping from asylum seekers and their helpers (such as the Center), but it does not explain what the government would gain by pretending that harm‐ less organizations are actually terrorist groups. The govern‐ ment makes mistakes, but the Center has not shown that they’re willful, or that Exemption 7(E), on which this litiga‐ tion pivots, is either invalid—in fact the Center concedes that the exemption is valid—or inapplicable to the withheld names”

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Erik S. Israel v. Carolyn W. Colvin

Case No.: 15-3220

Officials: FLAUM, ROVNER, and SYKES, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Social Security Benefits

Erik Israel applied for Social Security disability benefits in 2007, and diligently pursued his claim through administrative review. After many years of review, error and delay, the Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration (hereafter “Commissioner” or “Agency”) issued a final decision denying his claim. Israel filed suit in the district court to challenge that decision. The Commissioner conceded in the district court that her decision was not supported by substantial evidence and requested remand to conduct additional proceedings. Israel, frustrated with years of delay, sought a direct award of benefits. The district court remanded the case to the Agency for additional proceedings because the record, as it stands, does not compel a finding of disability. Israel v. Colvin, No. 14‐CV‐1155, slip op. at 6‐7 (E.D. Wisc. Aug. 28, 2015). Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in ordering a remand, we affirm. On remand, the Agency should expedite proceedings so that the matter may be resolved once and for all.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: William Viramontes v. City of Chicago, et al

Case No.: 15-2826

Officials: BAUER, KANNE, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Excessive Force – 4^th Amendment Violation

William Viramontes was convicted in Illinois state court of aggravated assault and resisting arrest. Despite the conviction, Viramontes filed this § 1983 suit against the officers involved in the altercation alleging that they used excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. The jury returned a verdict for the officers. Viramontes sought a new trial for two reasons: (1) because the district court instructed the jury that it had to take as true the facts underlying the state‐court conviction, and (2) because defense counsel made improper statements during closing argument. The district court denied the motion, holding that the jury instruction was proper and that, although defense counsel’s statements during closing argument were improper, they did not warrant a new trial. We agree and affirm.

Affirmed

Full Text

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: State of Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund v. Lexington Insurance Company, et al

Case No.: 15-1973

Officials: MANION and ROVNER, Circuit Judges, and BLAKEY, District Judge

Focus: Insurance – Arbitration

This dispute arises from the 2013 fire at the Milwaukee County Courthouse (the “Court‐ house”). Milwaukee County (the “County”) maintained its primary insurance policy covering the Courthouse with the State of Wisconsin Local Government Property Insurance Fund (the “Fund”). The Fund in turn engaged defendant Lexington Insurance Company (“Lexington”) as either its reinsurer or excess insurer (the parties disagree). The County also maintained a separate insurance policy with The Cincinnati Insurance Company (“Cincinnati”) that covered machinery and equipment at the Courthouse. Shortly after the fire, the County filed a claim with the Fund. The Fund paid all but a small portion of the County’s claimed losses. The Fund insisted that the remaining unpaid portion of the County’s claim should be paid by Cincinnati. Pursuant to separate Joint Loss Agreements in the County’s policies with the Fund and Cincinnati, the Fund and Cincinnati agreed to arbitrate their dispute.   This appeal concerns Lexington’s attempt to insert itself in that arbitration between the Fund and Cincinnati. The district court denied Lexington’s motion to compel arbitration after concluding that Lexington’s participation was not contemplated by the plain language of the Joint Loss Agreements. Lexington appealed. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM.

Affirmed

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Jamie Dean Moore, Jr.

Case No.: 2015AP1541-CR

Officials: Kessler and Brash, JJ., and Daniel L. LaRocque, Reserve Judge.

Focus: Court Error

Jamie Dean Moore, Jr., appeals from a judgment of conviction and from an order denying a postconviction motion that raised multiple claims of error without a hearing. Moore contends he was at least entitled to an evidentiary hearing on the motion. We conclude the trial court properly denied the motion without a hearing and we affirm the judgment and order.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Audie D. Harris

Case No.: 2015AP1641

Officials: Kessler and Brennan, JJ., and Daniel L. LaRocque, Reserve Judge.

Focus: Meritless Appeal

Audie D. Harris, pro se, appeals the order denying his WIS. STAT. § 974.06 (2013-14) postconviction motion. Because Harris’s various claims are either without merit, undeveloped, forfeited, or not cognizable under § 974.06, we affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Andrew S. Sato

Case No.: 2015AP1815-CR

Officials: Brennan and Brash, JJ., and Daniel L. LaRocque, Reserve Judge.

Focus: Motion to Suppress – Warrantless Arrest

Andrew Sato appeals a judgment of conviction for robbery by threat of force contrary to WIS. STAT. § 943.32(1)(b) (2013-14), entered upon a plea of guilty, as well as the order denying his motion for postconviction relief. He challenges the denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search warrant, and he relies upon evidence that the police unlawfully entered the curtilage area outside his apartment to obtain the exigent circumstance used to justify a warrantless entry and arrest. He would have the court apply the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine to the post-arrest search warrant. Even if a curtilage violation occurred and there were no exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless entry, we conclude that the search and seizure at issue were nevertheless sufficiently attenuated from the preceding events so as to avoid the exclusionary rule. We therefore affirm the judgment and order.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Marie Williams

Case No.: 2015AP2044-CR

Officials: Reilly, P.J., Gundrum and Hagedorn, JJ.

Focus: Immunity

We granted Marie Williams’ petition for leave to appeal, which was supported by the State, to determine whether entitlement to “immun[ity] from prosecution” under WIS. STAT. § 961.443 as an “aider” of a person believed to be suffering from a drug overdose is to be decided by the circuit court pretrial or by the fact finder at trial. The circuit court ruled the question should be determined at trial; Williams and the State assert it should be determined pretrial. We also address which party carries the burden of proof on the immunity question and by what standard. Williams and the State agree the burden should be on the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he/she is entitled to this statutory immunity. Lastly, Williams argues she is entitled to immunity not only on the charges that correspond to the crimes specifically listed in the statute but also on related bail jumping charges.  The State contends that if Williams is entitled to immunity, it is only on the charges that correspond to the specific crimes listed in the statute. We agree with Williams and the State that the question of immunity is to be decided by the circuit court pretrial and that the defendant carries the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence his/her entitlement to the immunity. On the final issue, we agree with the State that if Williams is entitled to immunity, the immunity only applies to the charges related to the specific crimes listed in the statute. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Recommended for publication

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: City of Madison v. Jacob Ong

Case No.: 2015AP1176

Officials: Lundsten, J.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence

Jacob Ong appeals, pro se, the circuit court’s judgment convicting him, after a jury trial, of an ordinance violation for theft of a letter. Ong also appeals a post-judgment order denying his motion to set aside the jury’s verdict. Ong challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. He also makes other arguments, most of which relate to his defense theory that he mistakenly took the letter. For the reasons below, I affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Evelio Banuelos

Case No.: 2015AP1673-CR

Officials: Kloppenburg, P.J., Lundsten and Sherman, JJ.

Focus: Court Error

Evelio Banuelos appeals a judgment of conviction for second-degree sexual assault of a child. Banuelos contends that he should be granted a new trial because of a number of claimed errors and their cumulative effect, as we detail below. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District I

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Debradre D. Jackson

Case No.: 2015AP2210-CR

Officials: Kloppenburg, P.J., Lundsten and Sherman, JJ.

Focus: Penalty Enhancer

Debradre Jackson appeals pro se a judgment convicting him of substantial battery as a repeater. 1 He also appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Jackson raises three issues on appeal: (1) whether admission of recordings of two 911 emergency calls from the victim violated his right to confront witnesses against him; (2) whether the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the conviction; and (3) whether the circuit court properly applied the repeater penalty enhancer at sentencing. For the reasons discussed below, we conclude that Jackson’s confrontation rights were not violated by admission of the 911 recordings, that the evidence sufficiently supports the verdict, and that the circuit court properly applied the repeater penalty enhancer at sentencing. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of conviction and the order denying postconviction relief

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: John A. Sanderson v. Pamela B. Sanderson

Case No.: 2015AP2472

Officials: Kloppenburg, P.J., Lundsten and Blanchard, JJ.

Focus: Divorce

John Sanderson appeals a judgment of divorce that divided marital property and awarded Pamela Sanderson an equalization payment of $92,113.26. John contends that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion by setting aside the parties’ premarital property agreement. For the reasons set forth below, we conclude that we have no basis to disturb the circuit court’s exercise of discretion. We affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District IV

Case Name: Alan Williams Gursky v. Candace Warner, et al

Case No.: 2015AP2494

Officials: Kloppenburg, P.J.

Focus: Motion for Reconsideration

On July 15, 2014, while incarcerated in the New Lisbon Correctional Institution, Alan Gursky filed an Inmate Complaint alleging that prison staff lost his hearing aid. Gursky’s inmate complaint was finally dismissed on October 13, 2014. Gursky served a notice of claim on the Wisconsin attorney general on February 11, 2015, and filed the complaint in this case in small claims court on June 18, 2015. The respondents, all employees of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, moved to dismiss Gursky’s complaint for “fail[ure] to adhere to the mandatory notice of claims requirements set forth in [WIS. STAT.] § 893.82.” The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss and denied Gursky’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. Gursky appeals. For the reasons stated below, I affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Blayne T. Seever

Case No.: 2015AP1341-CR

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Ineffective Assistance

Blayne Seever appeals a judgment of conviction for substantial battery, with intent to cause bodily harm, and an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Seever argues that he should be granted a new trial because his trial counsel provided ineffective assistance and in the interest of justice because the real controversy has not been fully tried. We reject Seever’s arguments and affirm.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. DeEldran L. Jackson

Case No.: 2015AP2141-CR

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Court Error

DeEldran Jackson appeals a judgment convicting him of criminal damage to property, false imprisonment, disorderly conduct and intimidation of a victim. The victim called 911 to report the crimes. Jackson contends the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied his request to present other acts evidence consisting of a citation charging the victim with misuse of 911 on an unrelated incident and police reports from that earlier incident. Because we conclude the circuit court properly exercised its discretion, we affirm the judgment.

Full Text

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Thomas J. Queever

Case No.: 2015AP2320-CR

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ

Focus: Restitution

Thomas Queever appeals from the restitution component of a judgment convicting him of attempted burglary of a building or dwelling. The circuit court ordered Queever to pay restitution to the victim for the expense she incurred to install a home security system. Queever contends the court erred by ordering restitution in that amount because the victim purchased the security system before the attempted break-in that gave rise to his conviction. We conclude the court properly exercised its discretion when it determined there was a causal nexus between the cost of the security system and the crime considered at Queever’s sentencing. We therefore affirm

Recommended for publication

Full Text