State v. Paula L. Schwerdtfeger

OFFICE OF THE CLERK
WISCONSIN COURT OF APPEALS
110 EAST MAIN STREET, SUITE 215
P.O. BOX 1688
MADISON, WISCONSIN 53701-1688
Telephone (608) 266-1880
TTY: (800) 947-3529
Facsimile (608) 267-0640
Web Site: www.wicourts.gov
DISTRICT II
October 27, 2021
To:
Hon. Kristine E. Drettwan
Circuit Court Judge
Electronic Notice
Kristina Secord
Clerk of Circuit Court
Walworth County
Electronic Notice
Kara Lynn Janson
Electronic Notice
James A. Walrath
Electronic Notice
Zeke Wiedenfeld
Electronic Notice
You are hereby notified that the Court has entered the following opinion and order:
2020AP250-CR State of Wisconsin v. Paula L. Schwerdtfeger (L.C. #2013CF63)
Before Reilly, J.1
Summary disposition orders may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or
authority, except for the limited purposes specified in WIS. STAT. RULE 809.23(3).
Paula L. Schwerdtfeger appeals from the imposition of a civil judgment against her,
resulting from her failure to pay court-ordered restitution during her probationary period. She
argues that the civil judgment is erroneous in the amount and is “invalid” as it was based upon
her no contest plea. We previously addressed these arguments in Schwerdtfeger’s direct appeal.
1 This appeal is decided by one judge pursuant to WIS. STAT. § 752.31(2)(f) (2019-20). All
references to the Wisconsin Statutes are to the 2019-20 version unless otherwise noted.

No. 2020AP250-CR
2
See State v. Schwerdtfeger, Nos. 2018AP1322-CR, 2018AP1323-CR, unpublished slip op. (WI
App Aug. 26, 2020) (Schwerdtfeger I). Based upon our review of the briefs and record, we
conclude that this case is appropriate for summary disposition. See WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
We affirm on the procedural ground that Schwerdtfeger has already had her day in court and that
the validity and amount of the civil judgment against her is proper.
Schwerdtfeger pled no contest to criminal damage to property on January 20, 2016.
Schwerdtfeger stipulated to the facts in the criminal complaint as a basis for her plea, and she
understood when she entered her plea that restitution would be ordered. A two-day restitution
hearing was held. The victims’ testimony was found to be credible, and restitution was set at
$141,850.47. Schwerdtfeger did not testify at the restitution hearing. Schwerdtfeger was
thereafter sentenced to a one-year term of probation with the condition that she pay the
restitution amount in full.2
Schwerdtfeger appealed the validity and amount of her restitution order in
Schwerdtfeger I. On August 26, 2020, we denied her appeal and affirmed the restitution order.
Schwerdtfeger I, Nos. 2018AP1322-CR, 2018AP1323-CR, ¶1. The Wisconsin Supreme Court
denied review.
While Schwerdtfeger’s direct appeal was pending, she was discharged from probation.
At the probation review hearing, the court noted that Schwerdtfeger had paid only $2700 in
restitution, which was “a paltry amount” given the damage inflicted on the victims’ home, but it
2 Schwerdtfeger’s probation was extended once for one year based on her failure to make a good
faith effort to make payments toward the restitution.

No. 2020AP250-CR
3
determined that given her financial circumstances, she had recently made a good faith effort to
make payments. While the circuit court discharged Schwerdtfeger from probation, it also
ordered a civil judgment in the amount of the unpaid restitution pursuant to WIS. STAT.
§ 973.09(3)(b) and refused to stay the entry of the judgment until we decided Schwerdtfeger’s
direct appeal. Schwerdtfeger now appeals from that order.
Schwerdtfeger attempts to relitigate what has already been litigated. She may not do so
as Wisconsin law is clear: “A matter once litigated may not be relitigated in a subsequent
postconviction proceeding no matter how artfully the defendant may rephrase the issue.” State v.
Witkowski, 163 Wis. 2d 985, 990, 473 N.W.2d 512 (Ct. App. 1991). On direct appeal,
Schwerdtfeger argued that (1) “the restitution order lacked a sufficient basis in the evidence, and
also was insufficient to support a subsequent civil judgment against her”; (2) her no contest plea
was “insufficient to support the restitution order”; and (3) “the entire restitution judgment of
$141,850.47 was barred by claim and/or issue preclusion, as the victims had already prosecuted
and secured their property damage claim in bankruptcy court.”3 See Schwerdtfeger I,
Nos. 2018AP1322-CR, 2018AP1323-CR, ¶¶29, 66-95.
In this appeal, Schwerdtfeger argues that (1) her civil judgment should be reversed as the
court “relied on inadmissible evidence to reach its judgment”; (2) the use of her no contest plea
as a basis for the civil judgment was improper; and (3) “[t]he dollar amount of property damage
suffered by [the victims], which is reflected in their part of the civil judgment, otherwise should
3 It is clear from the record that at the time of Schwerdtfeger I, the victims had “not recovered
anything from the bankruptcy judgment.” State v. Schwerdtfeger, Nos. 2018AP1322-CR, 2018AP1323-
CR, unpublished slip op. ¶22 (WI App Aug. 26, 2020) (Schwerdtfeger I). Schwerdtfeger does not argue
anything to the contrary in this appeal.

No. 2020AP250-CR
4
have been limited to the amount of the prior federal bankruptcy court judgment.”
Schwerdtfeger’s current appeal challenging the validity and amount of restitution entered as a
civil judgment is merely a repackaged version of her arguments that were raised and adjudicated
in Schwerdtfeger I and are, accordingly, procedurally barred. We need not and will not entertain
a second kick at the cat. The final order of December 20, 2019, of the Walworth County Circuit
Court is affirmed.
IT IS ORDERED that the order of the circuit court is summarily affirmed pursuant to
WIS. STAT. RULE 809.21.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this summary disposition order will not be published.
Sheila T. Reiff
Clerk of Court of Appeals