Identity theft — sufficiency of the evidence

Listen to this article

Wisconsin Court of Appeals

Criminal

Identity theft — sufficiency of the evidence

Cedric O. Clacks appeals an amended judgment of conviction for one count of identity theft as a party to the crime. Clacks contends the evidence was insufficient to prove he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of identity theft pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 943.201(2)(a) (2009-10) as party to the crime. According to Clacks, the evidence was insufficient to prove the fourth element: an intentional representation that the user of the personal identification document of another person is authorized to use it. We conclude the evidence that Clacks, or one of the individuals present with Clacks, signed the electronic credit card slip is sufficient to prove a representation that he or she was authorized to use the credit card.

Clacks also contests the amount of restitution he was ordered to pay pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 973.20. Specifically, Clacks contends that because he did not steal the victim’s purse, which contained a car key and the credit card, he cannot be ordered to pay restitution related to the loss of the car key. We conclude that the restitution order properly included an amount representing the cost to replace the victim’s car key and key locking system. Accordingly, we affirm the amended judgment of conviction. Not recommended for publication in the official reports.

2011AP338-CR State v. Clacks

Dist IV, Dane County, Ehlke, J., Vergeront, J.

Attorneys: For Appellant: Olsen, Jefren E., Madison; For Respondent: Barnett, Paul L., Madison; Freimuth, James M., Madison