On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175
For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: An SVP expert may rely on the respondent’s unproven prior misconduct in deriving his or her opinion. The § 904.04(2) “preliminary relevance” requirement, State v. James E. Gray, 225 Wis.2d 39, 59-61, 590 N.W.2d 918 (1999); State v. Landrum, 191 Wis. 2d 107,

State v. Matthew A.B., 231 Wis.2d 688, 605 N.W.2d 598 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Matthew A.B.: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a juvenile adjudication is admissible in a Ch.980 proceeding, § 938.35(1) notwithstanding.

Holding: A juvenile adjudication is admissible.

§ 938.35(1) expressly prohibits admissibility of a juvenile court disposition except for certain enumerated exceptions which don’t include Ch. 980 proceedings.

State v. Tory L. Rachel, 224 Wis.2d 571, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App. 1999).
For Rachel: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate.

Holding:

Tory L. Rachel appeals a nonfinal order of the trial court ruling that the findings and conclusions of a court-appointed expert are subject to discovery in a ch. 980, STATS., proceeding. Because the rules of civil procedure, chs. 801 to 847,

State v. Richard D. Yakes, 226 Wis.2d 425, 595 N.W.2d 108 (Ct. App. 1999)

Holding: Defendant’s adultery, failure to pay child support, and status as a bankrupt “were all appropriate factors relating to Yakes’ character and personal history.”

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

Gardner’s 30-year sentence is upheld as a proper exercise of discretion.

State v. Harry S. Bernstein, 231 Wis.2d 392, 605 N.W.2d 555 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bernstein: Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: After the state requests then withdraws a request for jury in a Ch. 980 proceeding, must trial to the court be premised on the respondent’s personal consent to this withdrawal?

Holding: Under § 980.05(2) the respondent’s consent to the state’s withdrawn assertion of jury trial need not be personal,

State v. Oto Orlik, 226 Wis.2d 527, 595 N.W.2d 468 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Orlik: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Holding: Trial court lacks authority, under §§ 969.01 & 969.03, to impose no-contact order as condition of bail for someone who remains incarcerated. However, the separate procedure authorized in § 940.47 may be utilized in such a situation.

State v. Leo E. Wanta, 224 Wis.2d 679, 592 N.W.2d 645 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Wanta: James M. Shellow

HOLDING: Wanta argues that Wis. Stat. § 971.14(4)(b) is unconstitutional, because it requires proof of incompetence by clear and convincing evidence when the defendant claims that s/he is competent (vs. proof of competency by mere greater weight of evidence when the defendant claims incompetence). The court construes the challenge to be one of equal protection.

State v. Michael W. Farrell, 226 Wis.2d 447, 595 N.W.2d 64 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Farrell: Kevin M. Schram

Holding: Finding of incompetency subsequent to plea proceeding is a factor to consider but in and of itself neither creates doubt as to prior competency nor requires retrospective competency hearing.

State v. Tommy Lo, 228 Wis. 2d 531, 599 N.W.2d 659 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Lo: Margarita Van Nuland

Issue/Holding: “When there is a conflict between the court’s oral pronouncement of sentence and a written judgment of conviction, the oral pronouncement controls.”