On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05
For Matke: James B. Connell

Issue/Holding:

¶17. Finally, Matke argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered, without explanation, that Matke’s present sentence be consecutive to any other sentences he was then serving. …

¶18. The sole infirmity that Matke cites is the court’s failure to specifically relate any of the sentencing factors it discussed to its decision to order the present sentence consecutive to,

State v. James L. Montroy, 2005  WI App 230
For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn

Issue/Holding: Wisconsin discretionary guideline regime is not governed by the holdings of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), ¶¶20-24. The latter cases are implicated only when a fact is utilized to support a sentence beyond the statutory maximum;

State v. James L. Montroy, 2005  WI App 230
For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn

Issue/Holding:

¶13      Montroy also argues that the PSI improperly included two of his juvenile adjudications, when there was no evidence that he was represented by counsel. [5] The State concedes that the Department of Corrections guidelines mandate that unrepresented juvenile adjudications should not be included in a PSI.

State v. Eduardo Jose Trigueros, 2005 WI App 112
For Trigueros: Eileen Miller Carter

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised sentencing discretion by placing too much weight on the need to protect the public, by placing defendant on probation with one year in the House of Correction, on possession with intent to deliver one gram or less of cocaine, where the State sought a sentence of 38 months including 14 months’ initial confinement.

State v. Lonnie C. Davis, 2005 WI App 98
For Davis: Pamela Moorshead

Issue: Whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion by failing to consider the defendant’s youthfulness (14 years 9 months) at the time he committed the sexual assaults.

Holding:

¶16      A review of the sentencing transcript demonstrates that the trial court did not erroneously exercise its discretion when it sentenced Davis ….

State v. Eduardo Jose Trigueros, 2005 WI App 112
For Trigueros: Eileen Miller Carter

Issue/Holding:

¶8        Second, Trigueros claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion because it did not consider probation as an option. Again, we disagree. In each case, the sentence imposed shall “call for the minimum amount of custody or confinement which is consistent with the protection of the public, the gravity of the offense and the rehabilitative needs of the defendant.” McCleary,

State v. Jeannie M.P., 2005 WI App 183
For Jeannie M.P.: Michael Yovovich, Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where counsel knew, or should have known, of evidence establishing possible motives for each of the two crucial State’s witnesses; and where adducing evidence of those motives would have been consistent with the chosen theory of defense, counsel’s failure to bring out that evidence at trial was deficient,

State v. Gwendolyn McGee, 2005 WI App 97
For McGee: Amelia L. Bizarro

Issue/Holding: The disobedient-child defense to a compulsory-attendance charge is an affirmative defense issue to be presented to the fact-finder at trial for resolution (as opposed to disposition by pretrial motion).

Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57
For Terrance M.: Theresa J. Schmieder

Issue/Holding: Because TPR cases are generally a subset of custody cases; and because claim preclusion is available as a means of discouraging groundless requests for modification of custody, both claim and issue preclusion “may also be applied when the facts so require” in TPRs, ¶¶8-9.

The court remands for determination of whether issue preclusion is appropriate in this instance,

State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05
For Matke: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether the number of prior OWI convictions used for penalty enhancement, § 346.65(2), is determined as of date offense is committed or date of sentencing for offense.
Holding:

¶5. How and when to count prior OMVWI convictions for purposes of penalty enhancement under Wis.