On Point: B. Published opinions

State v. Nathan J. Meinhardt, 2012 WI App 82 (recommended for publication); case activity

Amendments to § 973.015(1)(a) (2009-10), which expanded the offender’s age-ceiling and the eligible pool of offenses, doesn’t apply retroactively.

¶3        The determinative issue in this case is whether the circuit court has the authority to apply the amended version of Wis. Stat.§ 973.015(1)(a) retroactively to Meinhardt’s case.  The question of whether a statute can be applied retroactively is a question of law which this court reviews de novo.  

State v. Michael D. Carroll, 2012 WI App 83 (recommended for publication); case activity

Repeal of ability to earn “positive adjustment time” wasn’t highly relevant to Carroll’s sentence, therefore didn’t constitute a new factor that could support sentence modification.

¶9        Because 2011 Wis. Act 38 did not become effective until more than a year after Carroll’s sentencing hearing, it is obvious that the sentencing judge could not have known about the repeal at the time of sentencing.  

State v. Jerred Renard Washington / Jerred Renard Washington v. State, 2012 WI App 74 (recommended for publication); case activity (974.06); case activity (writ)

Habeas (Knight Petition) – Laches 

Following his plea-based conviction in 1997, Washington’s retained counsel filed a postconviction 809.30 motion in 1998. Counsel did not file a notice of appeal, however, after the motion was denied. Then, in 2009,

State v. Joel Joseph Lobermeier, 2012 WI App 77 (recommended for publication); for Lobermeier: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; case activity

Appellate Procedure – Waiver – Jury Instructions 

Failure to object to a jury instruction amounts to a failure to preserve for review an asserted objection, which must therefore be reviewed in the context of ineffective assistance of counsel. Nonetheless, failure to object to a “material variance”

State v. Wayne P. Harris, 2012 wI App 79(recommended for publication); for Harris:  Attorney Gary Grass; case activity

We know that “[a] defendant has a due process right to be sentenced based on accurate information.”  See State v. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, ¶9, 291 Wis. 2d 179, 717 N.W.2d 1  But what happens when the sentencing court relies upon a DOC-prepared revocation summary that is “technically true but misleading” or that is “written in a way that that invite[s] the court to draw negative inferences”? 

State v. Laurence W. Tucker, 2012 WI App 67 (recommended for publication); for Tucker: Robert T. Ruth; case activity

Tucker pleaded guilty pursuant to plea bargain, which terms included continuation of his release on bond and compliance with same. After Tucker failed to appear at sentencing, necessitating his arrest on a bench warrant and issuance of a new charge of bail jumping, the State informed counsel it was no longer bound by the agreement,

Karen Baker v. Department of Health Services, 2012 WI App 72 (recommended for publication); case activity

Service, by Mail – Generally 

¶3 n. 2:

… In the absence of a statutory provision, the rule in Wisconsin is that service of notice by mail is not effective until the party receives it.  Hotel Hay Corp. v. Milner Hotels, 255 Wis.

State v. Andre L. Miller, 2012 WI App 68 (recommended for publication); for Miller: Jeffrey J. Guerard; case activity

Haseltine “Vouching” Rule 

The anti-vouching rule of State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984) (one witness may not comment on the credibility of another witness) isn’t applicable to a pre-trial interrogation during which the detective describes the defendant as lying.

State v. Shawn M. Klingelhoets, 2012 WI App 55 (recommended for publication); for Klingelhoets: Robert R. Henak; case activity

Intentionally Mistreating Animal, Resulting in Death, §§ 951.02 and 951.18(1) – Intent Element 

Intentionally mistreating an animal, resulting in the animal’s death, contrary to Wis. Stat. §§ 951.02 and 951.18(1), doesn’t require intent to kill:

¶17      In sum, the plain language of Wis. Stat. § 951.18(1) does not require a defendant to have intentionally mutilated,

State v. Thomas M. Pocian, 2012 WI App 58 (recommended for publication); for Pocian: Martin E. Kohler, Craig S. Powell, Geoffrey R. Misfeldt; case activity

¶2        In 1986, Thomas M. Pocian was convicted of writing forged checks, a felony.  Twenty-four years later, Pocian was prosecuted under Wis. Stat. § 941.29, which prohibits a felon from possessing a firearm.  Relying on Heller and McDonald,