On Point: Published 2002

State ex rel. Ernie Garibay v. Kenosha County, 2002 WI App 164
For Garibay: Denise Hertz-McGrath

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The dispositive issue is whether a defendant who is charged jointly with another defendant may obtain substitution of a judge pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.20(6) when the codefendant is not yet before the court. We conclude that the language of § 971.20(6) is plain and unambiguous and applies in a multiple defendant action even when a codefendant is unavailable to either join or refuse to join a substitution request.

Barbara R.K. v. James G., 2002 WI App 47

Issue: Whether review of a denied request for substitution of judge is waived by failure to seek review of the denial by the local chief judge.

Holding:

¶9…. The statute then provides: “If the judge named in the substitution request finds that the request was not timely and in proper form, that determination may be reviewed by the chief judge of the judicial administrative district …

State v. Rodosvaldo C. Pozo, 2002 WI App 279, 258 Wis. 2d 796, 654 N.W.2d 12

Issue/Holding:

¶8. Writ of habeas corpus is an equitable remedy that protects a person’s right to personal liberty by freeing him or her from illegal confinement. State ex rel. Dowe v. Waukesha County Circuit Court, 184 Wis. 2d 724, 728-29, 516 N.W.2d 714, 715-16 (1994). It arises in common law and is guaranteed by the state2 and federal3 constitutions,

State ex rel Edwin C. West v. Bartow, 2002 WI App 42
For West: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue: Whether the court had discretion to order change of venue from Winnebago (county of current SVP confinement) to Milwaukee (county of commitment), on habeas challenge to the commitment.

Holding: Venue was proper in Winnebago under § 801.50(4)(b) (where petitioner is being restrained); the trial court’s transfer mistakenly relied on § 801.50(4)(a) (where petitioner was convicted or sentence,

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient to establish the intent element, and therefore to support conviction, for contributing to delinquency of a minor, §  948.40(1): “The jury reasonably could infer from the evidence that Williams was aware that his participation in illegal gambling with James D.

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.