Charles P. Dykman

In State v. Kenyon, the defendant was convicted of theft by misappropriation after embezzling nearly $150,000 from his employer and was placed on probation with an order to pay restitution. The trial court later directed Kenyon to liquidate his life insurance policy and withdraw funds from his pension plan to satisfy part of the restitution owed to the victims. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the order violated the anti-alienation provision of ERISA under 29 U.S.C. § 1056(d), which protects pension benefits from assignment or alienation, and rejected the State's argument that Kenyon was estopped from raising the issue. The court remanded the case after concluding that federal law preempted the state court's restitution order.

criminal lawfederal power

In State v. Hubbard, the defendant was charged with six felony counts under Wis. Stat. § 943.24(2) for issuing 57 worthless checks, each under $1,000, totaling over $6,000 within a six-day period in 1994; each count grouped checks that aggregated more than $1,000, with no overlap. Hubbard argued the charges were multiplicitous, claiming the statute created only a single felony for any number of such checks issued within a 15-day period once the aggregate exceeded $1,000, and moved to consolidate them into one count. The court rejected this, holding that the allowable unit of prosecution is each distinct group of checks exceeding $1,000 in total value, so the six charges did not violate double jeopardy protections. The decision rested on statutory interpretation of the provision's text and legislative intent, distinguishing it from other time-based offenses like nonsupport, and affirmed the convictions after addressing but not finding waiver from the no-contest pleas.

criminal law

In State v. Santos, a Cuban immigrant convicted of burglary after pleading guilty sought to withdraw his pleas, claiming ineffective assistance of counsel because his appointed attorney failed to advise him that the convictions could lead to deportation and did not pursue a judicial recommendation against it. The Wisconsin Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's denial of postconviction relief. The court held that deportation is a collateral consequence of a guilty plea, and counsel has no constitutional duty to inform defendants of such consequences. It reasoned that the Sixth Amendment guarantee of effective counsel exists to ensure fair trials and reliable guilt determinations, not to address unrelated collateral effects like immigration outcomes.

immigrationcriminal law

The case involved the Wisconsin Department of Transportation's denial of permits for two outdoor advertising signs in an area zoned as a 'Highway Use District' under a Dodge County ordinance, which the department claimed did not qualify as a 'business area' under state law implementing federal highway beautification rules. The Commissioner of Transportation reversed the denial, finding the district's permitted conditional uses sufficient to meet the statutory definition, and the circuit court affirmed. On appeal, the Court of Appeals upheld the decision, holding that the ordinance expressly allowed commercial activities such as arts and crafts shops and veterinary clinics, which are not merely incidental but primary uses that render the area zoned for business, industrial, or commercial purposes. The court reasoned that conditional uses are expressly permitted and must be considered in the zoning classification, while noting that federal regulations defer to state and local zoning authority absent specific violations like zoning primarily for signs. The judgment affirmed the commissioner's order granting the permits.

business & regulatoryfederal power