On Point: Published 2004

State v. Shaun E. Kelley, 2005 WI App 199
For Kelley: Gregory Bates

Issue/Holding:

¶15      An officer has the right to access objects in plain view while searching within the scope of the consent.  See State v. Johnson, 187 Wis. 2d 237, 242, 522 N.W.2d 588 (Ct. App. 1994). In order for the plain view doctrine to apply, three requirements must be met:

First,

State v. Christopher Swiams, 2004 WI App 217, District 1, 10/19/04 (published); case activity

Issue/Holding:

¶8. … The State contends, however, that reconfinement orders may only be reviewed via common-law certiorari and not under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.30. It relies on State v. Bridges, 195 Wis. 2d 254, 536 N.W.2d 153 (Ct. App. 1995) (per curiam).

…

¶10.

Derek J. Harder v. Carol L. Pfitzinger, 2004 WI 102

Issue/Holding:

¶15. If there are no further documents in the circuit court’s file and all substantive issues have been decided for one or more parties in an order or a judgment, there is usually less confusion about whether the time for appeal has begun to run, than when there is a subsequent court document. Our prior cases have attempted to remove confusion about when the time limits in Wis.

State v. Richard A. Brown III, 2004 WI App 33, reversed on other grounds, 2005 WI 29
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, at a § 980.08 supervised release hearing, an expert’s report filed under § 980.08(3) may be introduced into evidence, though hearsay and though the author does not testify.
Holding:

¶14. …. Generally, where a party secures the services of a psychologist or other professional in support of an action,

State v. Dennis Thiel, 2004 WI App 225
For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the court must appoint an examiner for the subject under § 980.08(3) when it has already appointed one under § 980.08(4).
Holding:

¶17. The parties agree that the language of Wis. Stat. § 980.08(3) requires the circuit court to appoint an examiner for the court, and we concur.

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding: “Second, Arredondo claims that his trial attorney failed to impeach Garza’s testimony with false statements Garza made to the police. This claim fails on both the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Arredondo cannot show prejudice because Garza admitted on direct-examination that he lied to the police….,” ¶33.

State v. George Melvin Taylor, 2004 WI App 81, PFR filed 4/13/04
For Taylor: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18. Accordingly, we must now turn to the Batson challenge itself. Our supreme court has adopted the Batson principles and analysis. State v. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, ¶22, 262 Wis. 2d 747,

State ex rel. Richard A. Ford v. Holm, 2004 WI App 22, PFR filed 3/1/04
For Ford: James R. Troupis, State Bar Pro Bono Project
For Amicus (SPD): Marla Stephens, Director; Patricia K. Flood, First Asst.SPD

Issue/Holding:

¶2 A person convicted in Wisconsin of committing a crime has a constitutionally guaranteed right to appeal his or her conviction to this court. WIS.

State v. Christopher Swiams, 2004 WI App 217
For Swiams: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:

¶4 The question presented by this appeal is whether persons sentenced to a bifurcated term of imprisonment whose extended supervision is revoked may seek relief under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.30 from the trial court’s reconfinement order. We hold that they may.

Review of reconfinement has been a sticking point for some time,

State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51, affirmed on other grounds, 2005 WI 110
For Denis L.R.: Richard Hahn; Dwight D. Darrow

Issue/Holding: ¶10, n. 3: Dawn originally commenced this appeal by filing a petition for leave to appeal a nonfinal order. However, we determined that the order was final because it concluded a special proceeding with respect to the confidentiality privilege held by Dawn on behalf of Kirsten.