On Point: 46. WI Court of Appeals

State v. Mark Inglin, 224 Wis.2d 764, 592 N.W.2d 666 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Inglin: Stephen M. Glynn & Robert R. Henak

Holding: § 948.31(1)(b) penalizes several different actus reus alternatives, including taking a child away, or withholding a child more than 12 hours beyond court approval. Inglin had his ex-wife’s consent to take their child on a camping trip to Colorado. He deceived her, though, and fled with the child to Canada.

State v. Dawn C. Moline, 229 Wis. 2d 38, 598 N.W.2d 929 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Moline: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether prior conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia, § 961.573, qualifies the offender as a repeat drug offender,  § 961.48(3).

Holding:

By this decision, we hold that a prior conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia pursuant to § 961.573, STATS., qualifies as a prior offense under the repeat drug offender statute,

State v. Jonathan V. Manke, 230 Wis.2d 421, 602 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Manke: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding: After a plea-based sentence has been vacated, and re-sentencing ordered, the “fair and just reason” standard applies to a motion to withdraw the plea:

Before considering if Manke met his burden of proof, our initial determination must be which is the correct standard to apply when evaluating his plea withdrawal motion. 

State v. Steven M. Shimek, 230 Wis.2d 730, 601 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Shimek: Keith A. Findley.

Issue: Whether perceived bias on part of PSI author supports pre-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea.

Holding: Trial court’s denial of motion, along with disregarding recommendation of that PSI and allowing defense to prepare alternative PSI, was proper exercise of discretion:

The purpose of permitting plea withdrawals before sentencing under this liberal standard is to facilitate the efficient administration of justice by reducing the number of appeals contesting the knowing and voluntariness of a plea;

State v. Jonathan L. Franklin, 228 Wis.2d 408, 596 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Franklin: Archie E. Simonson.

Holding: Franklin’s effort to withdraw his guilty plea, based on a claim that his attorney failed to investigate an alibi, is rebuffed. His attorney testified at a plea-withdrawal hearing that Franklin had already admitted that the alibi was false, and that the attorney had told Franklin he was ethically barred from presenting witnesses he knew were lying.

State v. Michael R. Sturgeon, 231 Wis.2d 487, 605 N.W.2d 589 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Sturgeon: Terry Evan Williams.

Issue/Holding: To prevail on a motion to withdraw guilty plea based on postplea discovery of exculpatory information, a defendant must prove (a) the existence of exculpatory evidence (b) in the exclusive control of the prosecution (c) unknown to the defense, the withholding of which (d) caused the guilty plea.

Sturgeon pleaded guilty to burglary,

State v. David C. Tutlewski, 231 Wis.2d 379, 605 N.W.2d 561 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Tutlewski: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether citation to relevant authority preserved an evidentiary objection.

Holding: The issue was preserved by contemporaneous objection that included citation to relevant caselaw:

¶10     At trial and before Carver was permitted to testify, Tutlewski renewed his objection to the State’s calling of Carver. 

State v. David J. Gardner, 230 Wis. 2d 32, 601 N.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Gardner: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Holding: Gardner attempted to raise an involuntary intoxication defense, § 939.42(1), based on the effects of prescription medication. The trial court heard his offer of proof and barred his expert (psychiatrist) from testifying. Unlike voluntary intoxication, involuntary intoxication doesn’t negate intent; it instead renders the actor incapable of distinguishing right from wrong,

State v. Gordon R. Anderson, Jr., 230 Wis.2d 121, 600 N.W.2d 913 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Anderson: Craig M. Kuhary

Issue: Whether the trial court erred, under the doctrine of completeness, in refusing to admit certain portions of Anderson’s statement to a detective.

Holding: The completeness doctrine trumps the hearsay rule, and the trial court erred in excluding one portion of the statement (though the error was harmless);

State v. Liliana Petrovic, 224 Wis.2d 477, 592 N.W.2d 238 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Petrovic: Robert B. Rondini

Issue/Holding: The court holds admissible the following evidence: defendant’s “close” connection to someone (Fooden) with whom an agent “was familiar … based on drug investigations he had performed for the IRS.” “The State’s evidence indicating a connection between Petrovic and Fooden was relevant to the issue of drug delivery.