On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Sentence of initial confinement of 35 years not excessive:

¶25. Although we recognize that trial courts should impose “‘the minimum amount of custody’” consistent with the appropriate sentencing facts, State v.

State v. Joseph A. Lombard, 2003 WI App 163, affirmed, other grounds, 2004 WI 95
For Lombard: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding: Evidence sufficient to support commitment though only one state’s expert supported commitment against three defense experts:

¶21 … The State’s expert, a psychologist who evaluated Lombard for the purpose of determining whether proceedings under Wis. Stat. ch. 980 should be instituted,

State v. James Lalor, 2003 WI App 68, PFR filed 4/15/03
For Lalor: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Evidence based on actuarial instruments (RRASOR; PCL-R; MnSOST-R; V-RAG), to the effect that of people with similar scores about 50% reoffend within five years and 70% within ten years, supports finding of substantial likelihood to engage in sexual violence. ¶¶15-25.

State v. Bryan Hoover, 2003 WI App 116, PFR filed 6/26/03
For Hoover: Glenn C. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The defense wasn’t entitled to cross-examine a prosecution witness about the sentence he received on an otherwise unrelated charge, where the witness wasn’t offered a benefit in exchange for his testimony. Allowing the defense to cross-examine on the witness’s perception of what benefit he might receive sufficiently accommodated the right of confrontation.

State v. Charles Chvala, 2003 WI App 257, affirmed, 2005 WI 30
For Chvala: Lawton & Cates

Issue/Holding:

¶23. Chvala asserts that Wisconsin courts do not rely on decisions from other states to interpret the Wisconsin Constitution, and he asks that we not consider the above cases in reaching our decision. We recognize that none are binding, but there is no reason we may not consider how courts of other jurisdictions have decided the same or similar issues.

State ex rel Darrell W. Griffin v. Litscher, 2003 WI App 60

Issue/Holding:

¶5. Mandamus is an extraordinary writ which may be used to compel a public officer to perform a duty which he or she is legally bound to perform. Karow v. Milwaukee County Civil Serv. Comm., 82 Wis. 2d 565, 568 n.2, 263 N.W.2d 214 (1978). There are four prerequisites for issuance of a writ of mandamus: (1) a clear legal right;

State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03
For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

¶22. Ramuta complains that the cumulative terms of initial confinement-thirty-five years, until he turns seventy-six-are excessive. He claims that the trial court did not adequately explain why the sentences for all but one of his crimes should be, to use Ramuta’s word,

State v. William A. Silva, 2003 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/4/03
For Silva: Martin E. Kohler, Brian Kinstler, Donald E. Chewning

Issue/Holding: (State v. Gordon, 2003 WI 69, followed. ¶15 n. 4:)

¶19 We are satisfied that, under the circumstances, Silva’s allegations do not defeat the strong presumption that trial counsel rendered adequate assistance. Silva’s trial attorney did as well as most attorneys would have done.

State v. Robert L. Snider, 2003 WI App 172, PFR filed 8/22/03
For Snider: Timothy J. Gaskell

Issue/Holding: The detective’s testimony as to what he believed at the time he was conducting the investigation did not amount to a comment on the credibility of a witness, hence was not deficient performance, ¶27. Moreover, “(c)ounsel’s attempt to discredit the investigating detective by showing that he came to a premature conclusion regarding what had occurred,

State v. Robert Jamont Wright, 2003 WI App 252
For Wright: Ann Auberry

Issue/Holding:

¶35. Wright’s appellate argument rests largely on Van Rybroek’s testimony at the Machner hearing, which documents the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. However, as the trial court aptly observed, trial counsel’s decision to forego an expert was made prior to Lomack surfacing as a potential witness and prior to the trial court’s ruling that Van Rybroek’s testimony was admissible under those changed circumstances.