On Point

court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.

“Booking Exception” to Miranda
Questioning to determine Pugh’s “true identity” fell within “booking exception.”

Sentencing Discretion
Sentence upheld where “well within maximum” and addressed “the three primary factors.”

court of appeals decision; for Carter: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Ex Parte Judicial Questioning, Pretrial Proceeding
Pretrial judicial questioning of a witness at return of a bench warrant worked deprivation of the defendant’s rights to counsel and presence at trial when the witness was subsequently impeached with statements she made during that exchange, ¶¶17-21. The error, though occurring but once and limited to impeachment,

court of appeals decision; for Lee: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Sentence Credit – Wisconsin Custody under Foreign Parole Hold
Time spent in Wisconsin custody under a foreign parole hold must be credited against the Wisconsin sentence, even though it is ordered “consecutive to any previously imposed sentence.” Concern about “dual credit” is not yet “ripe,” because the foreign jurisdiction has not,

court of appeals decision; for Duckett: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.

Guilty Pleas – Breach – Lack of Contemporaneous Objection
Failure to object contemporaneously forfeits right of review of subsequently-asserted plea bargain breach. The issue therefore is reviewable only “in the context of a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel,” ¶6.

The court is fond of making this pronouncement,

court of appeals decision (3-judge); Resp Br; Reply

Sentencing Discretion
Sentencing court’s giving “public protection factor” “paramount” consideration proper exercise of discretion.

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); Resp Br; Reply

Impartial Tribunal
Various rulings did not evince judicial bias, even if some displayed “irritation or impatience”; moreover, judicial rulings alone almost never establish judicial partiality.

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); Resp Br; Reply

“Great Bodily Harm”
Instruction defining “great bodily harm” as “serious bodily injury” adequate, under controlling authority of State v. Mahlik D. Ellington, 2005 WI App 243, ¶¶6-10.

court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); BiC; Resp Br

Search & Seizure – Warrantless Entry
O’Connell had reasonable expectation of privacy in stairwell leading to his apartment; warrantless entry to stairwell, to investigate OWI complaint against O’Connell, “was not justified by exigent circumstances because at the time of the entry, the officers had no basis to believe the underlying offense was a jailable offense.” The court implies that,

ussc decision

“Edwards” Rule – 14-Day Expiry
A “break in custody” ends the presumptive involuntariness of a statement following invocation of right to counsel; reinterrogation permitted after 14-day lapse.

… The protections offered by Miranda, which we have deemed sufficient to ensure that the police respect the suspect’s desire to have an attorney present the first time police interrogate him, adequately ensure that result when a suspect who initially requested counsel is reinterrogated after a break in custody that is of sufficient duration to dissipate its coercive effects.

S.C. Johnson v. Milton E. Morris, 2010 WI App 6, PFR filed 12/30/09

Issue/Holding: ¶5 n. 1:

We note that neither Russell’s nor Buske’s appellate counsel properly cite to the record. Record cites are often missing. An appellate court is improperly burdened where briefs fail to consistently and accurately cite to the record. Meyer v. Fronimades, 2 Wis.