On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Anthony J. Leitner, 2001 WI App 172, affirmed on other grounds, 2002 WI 77
For Leitner: Jim Scott

Issue: Whether the trial court properly denied a presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Holding:

¶27. When a defendant shows a fair and just reason, the trial court should permit the plea withdrawal unless there is substantial prejudice to the prosecution.

State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2002 WI App 293, affirmed, 2004 WI 107
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The pleading requirements for a hearing imposed by State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996) aren’t applicable to a motion for plea-withdrawal based on defective colloquy:

¶20. Hampton responds that Bentley does not apply because the defendant in Bentley sought plea withdrawal based on ineffective assistance of counsel and,

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: The drug tax stamp law, §§ 139.87-139.96,  amended to address State v. Hall, 207 Wis. 2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), doesn’t violate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, ¶33-36.

State ex rel. Bradley Jones v. Smith, 2002 WI App 90, PFR filed 4/19/02

Issue: Whether a prisoner is entitled to discharge of sentence if transported through another state without use of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, § 976.03.

Holding: 

¶5                        According to Jones and Morey, the government is required to use the extradition process whenever and wherever prisoners are transported through noncontracting states on their way to incarceration in a contracting state. 

State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, overruled on other grounds, 2003 WI 89, ¶111
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t waive a facially valid multiplicity claim. ¶13.

State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02
For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶27 … Here, Grindemann did object to the prosecutor’s mention of uncharged offenses at sentencing, but the objection was based on the lack of evidence ‘properly before the court,’ not on any claim that the State was violating either the terms or the ‘spirit’ of the plea agreement.

State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds

Issue: Whether evidence that the defendant committed a burglary at the age of 13 was admissible as extrinsic evidence to impeach his testimonial denial, on cross-examination, of intent to steal.

Holding: § 906.08(2) expressly prohibits using extrinsic evidence of specific instances of conduct to attack a witness’s credibility,

State v. Joseph F. Volk, 2002 WI App 274
For Volk: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison App

Issue: Whether, in a prosecution for battery against the defendant’s live-in girlfriend, evidence of the defendant’s domestic abuse of his former wife was admissible.

Holding: The evidence tended to refute the defense of lack of intent to harm:

¶22. Here, the prior acts testified to by Love were very similar to the events surrounding the charged offense and,

State v. Brian D. Seefeldt, 2002 WI App 149, affirmed, 2003 WI 47
For Seefeldt: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶23. We are satisfied that the reference to the outstanding warrants is not classic “other acts” evidence invoking Wis. Stat. § 904.04(2) analysis. Rather, the existence of the warrants is “part of the panorama of evidence” that directly supports Seefeldt’s defense and sits at the heart of his right to present exculpatory evidence.

State v. Eugene P. Opalewski, 2002 WI App 145, PFR filed 6/6/02
For Opalewski: Lorinne J. Cunningham

Issue/Holding: On charges of first degree sexual assault of a child and incest, evidence of the defendant’s past sexual abuse of his two daughters and the children of a prior girlfriend was admissible under the three-step test of State v. Sullivan, 216 Wis.