On Point blog, page 54 of 60
NGI — Revocation — Timeliness of Petition
State v. George Schertz, 2002 WI App 289
For Schertz: Barbara A. Cadwell
Issue/Holding: The provision in § 971.17(3)(e) for hearing within 30 days a petition for revocation of NGI conditional release is directory, not mandatory. ¶¶7-14.
SVP Commitment: Claim/Issue Preclusion – Prior Dismissal of Petition at Trial for Insufficient Proof
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act of sexual violence.
Holding:
¶22. Although Parrish’s preclusion argument presents an issue of first impression in Wisconsin,
SVP: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Failure to Obtain Expert – Lack of Prejudice
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02
For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: The trial court’s rejection of respondent’s post-commitment proffer of an expert, in support of a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not securing an expert, is sustained, due in particular to the trial court’s conclusion that the proffered expert would not have altered the outcome: “that judge,
SVP Commitments: Conditions of Confinement: Blanket Policy of Restraint During Transport
Richard Thielman v. Leean, 2002 WI App 33
Companion case: Thielman v. Leean, 282 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2002)For Thielman: Mary Kennelly
Issue/Holding:
¶1. The Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) appeals the circuit court’s order enjoining DHFS from transporting Richard Thielman and similarly committed ch. 980 patients to and from treatment facilities such as Wisconsin Resource Center (WRC) in full restraints without first making individualized determinations that restraints are needed during transport.
SVP – Trial – Jury Instructions – Acts of Sexual Violence
State v. John Lee Laxton, 2002 WI 82, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision
(Affirmed on other grounds, habeas review, John L. Laxton v. Bartow, 421 F.3d 565 (7th Cir 2005))
For Laxton: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court adequately instructed the jury on “acts of sexual violence.”
Holding:
¶28.
SVP – Trial – Jury Selection – Failure to Strike Juror – Reviewability
State v. Richard A. Brown (II), 2002 WI App 260, PFR filed 10/22/02
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶16. Brown next argues that the trial court erred in failing to strike a prospective juror for cause and that he was prejudiced by being forced to use one of his peremptory strikes to remove him. Although a few years ago,
SVP – Trial – Jury Selection – Number of Peremptory Challenges
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth
Issue: Whether a respondent is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges prescribed by § 972.03, because of the potential for life-long custody.
Holding: Because an SVP respondent is entitled to periodic review, the analogy to a life sentence fails, and peremptory challenges are regulated by § 805.08(3) (three challenges,
SVP – Pretrial – Petition — Timeliness — Calculation of Release Date on Concurrent Sentences
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth
Issue: Whether the state’s petition was timely, where the respondent had already completed his sentence on the qualifying conviction but was serving concurrent sentences with the controlling sentence a non-qualifying conviction.
Holding: State v. Keith, 216 Wis. 2d 61, 573 N.W.2d 888 (Ct. App. 1997) (petition timely filed where respondent serving consecutive sentences) extended to concurrent sentences:
¶17.
SVP – Trial: Venue – County of Predicate Offense
State v. Bernard G. Tainter, 2002 WI App 296, PFR filed 12/23/02
Issue/Holding:
¶14. Wisconsin Const. art. I, § 7, grants criminal defendants the right to a trial “by an impartial jury of the county or district wherein the offense shall have been committed; which county or district shall have been previously ascertained by law.” Tainter claims this provision conflicts with Wis. Stat. § 980.02(4) and (5),
SVP – Trial: Witnesses – Lay Expert – Probation/Parole Officer
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth
Issue: Whether a probation and parole agent was properly allowed to give an opinion regarding the likelihood of the respondent reoffending.
Holding:
¶29. The fact that Kittman was not a psychologist or mental health specialist did not preclude his testimony. Under Wis. Stat. § 907.02 (1997-98), relevant experience,