On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Rudolph L. Jackson, 2004 WI App 132, PFR filed 6/15/04
For Jackson: Andrea Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the prosecutor violated an agreement not to make a specific sentencing recommendation by expressing outrage at recommendations proffered on Jackson’s behalf and by urging the court to take into account the deterrent effect of its sentence.

Holding:

¶14. Jackson contends that the prosecutor breached the plea negotiation as his statements constituted an “end-run”

State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51, affirmed as modified, 2005 WI 110
For Denis L.R.: Richard Hahn; Dwight D. Darrow

Issue/Holding:

¶15. This court recently analyzed whether waiver of the attorney-client privilege must be intentional under Wis. Stat. § 905.11. Sampson Children’s Trust v. Sampson 1979 Trust, 2003 WI App 141, 265 Wis.

State v. Charles Brown, 2004 WI App 179
For Brown: John J. Grau

Issue: Whether a plea bargain that cannot be fulfilled results in an unknowing and involuntary plea, notwithstanding that the terms incapable of fulfillment are collateral consequences of the plea (sex offender registration and SVP eligibility).
Holding:

¶6 … (S)ince Brown’s misunderstanding involved the collateral consequences of his pleas,2 the State contends that Brown cannot prove that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary.

State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04
For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: A child’s videotaped statement may be admitted under the residual exception, § 908.03(24), without satisfying all the requirements of § 908.08. ¶40. The trial court properly applied the trustworthiness test of State v. Sorenson, 143 Wis. 2d 226, 245-46,

State v. Steven J. Burgess, 2003 WI 71, affirming 2002 WI App 264, 258 Wis. 2d 548, 654 N.W.2d 81
For Burgess: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶33. Although persons committed under chapter 980 are similarly situated to those committed under chapter 51, there is a rational basis for the legislature’s distinction with respect to the confidentiality of proceedings under the two chapters.

State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶16. Weed argues that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion in admitting Michael’s statement regarding unloading the .357 because the statement did not meet the statutory requirements for admissibility under Wis. Stat. § 908.045(2). Weed principally argues that Michael’s statement was inadmissible under the exception due to the lack of a proper foundation;

State v. Bernell Ross, 2003 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/21/03
For Ross: Andrew Mishlove

Issue/Holding:

¶15. In a challenge to a Batson ruling, we review the trial court’s determination as to whether the State had a discriminatory intent as a finding of historical fact, which we shall not disturb unless clearly erroneous. State v. Gregory,

State v. Jeremy T. Greer, 2003 WI App 112, on remand following equally-divided result,2003 WI 30; PFR filed 6/12/03
For Greer: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶14. In this case it is not disputed that before he confessed to Detective Williams, Greer was told, both orally and in writing, that the polygraph test was over.

State v. Marvin J. Moss, 2003 WI App 239, PFR filed 10/27/03
For Moss: F.M. Van Hecke

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The issue in this case is whether a defendant’s incriminating statement improperly coerced by a person who is not a state agent offends constitutional due process such that the statement is inadmissible. We conclude that there is no due process violation where, as in this case,

State v. John S. Cooper, 2003 WI App 227, PFR filed 11/14/03
For Cooper: John A. Birdsall
Issue/Holding:

¶23. As a final matter, this court notes with dismay the multiple citations to unpublished opinions contained in Cooper’s appellate brief. The Rules of Appellate Procedure proscribe as follows:

Unpublished opinions not cited. An unpublished opinion is of no precedential value and for this reason may not be cited in any court of this state as precedent or authority,