On Point: Published 2005

State v. Rickey Eugene Pinkard, 2005 WI App 226
For Pinkard: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: Someone holding drugs for another person and planning to return the drugs to that person intends to deliver within the meaning of § 961.41(1m). State v. Smith, 189 Wis. 2d 496, 525 N.W.2d 264 (1995) (conspiracy to deliver not supported where only evidence is that seller intended to sell small amount for buyer’s personal use) distinguished,

State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113
For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶11      “A defendant seeking to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest prior to sentencing must show that there is a ‘fair and just reason,’ for allowing him or her to withdraw the plea.” State v. Kivioja, 225 Wis. 2d 271, 283,

State v. Jeremy K. Morse, 2005 WI App 223
For Morse: Amelia L. Bizarro

Issue/Holding:

¶10      Here, the record reflects that Morse failed to demonstrate either a statutory or a Bangert violation. The plea hearing addressed all the appropriate issues and contains no statutory violations. The plea was extensive and complete. The fact that Morse now contends that he lied in answering the trial court’s questions during the plea colloquy cannot operate to create an unconstitutional plea.

State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113
For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Given that the record established Nelson’s ignorance of the potential for commitment as a sexually violent person (ch. 980) as a result of his guilty pleas, the trial court’s conclusion that he presented a “fair and just” reason for pre-sentencing plea withdrawal is sustained:

¶14      In determining whether the trial court properly determined that a fair and just reason was established,

State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113
For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether, after Nelson demonstrated a “fair and just” reason for pre-sentencing plea withdrawal, the State satisfied is concomitant burden of showing “substantial prejudice” in order to defeat the motion, where the principal complainant could no longer be found.

Holding:

¶17      We next turn to the question of whether the State met its burden of proof.

State v. Xavier J. Rockette, 2005 WI App 205
For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding: Issue/Holding: Trial court’s error in refusing to order suppression of statement was harmless under § 971.31(10), under following circumstances:

¶27      We conclude that the result in this case would have been the same beyond a reasonable doubt even if the circuit court had granted Rockette’s suppression motion, given the overwhelming incentives Rockette had to plead rather than go to trial. 

State v. Jeremy K. Morse, 2005 WI App 223
For Morse: Amelia L. Bizarro

Issue: Whether Morse was entitled to plea-withdrawal on the basis of claimed newly discovered evidence, in the form of taped jail conversations between inmates discussing his case, and certain police reports.

Holding: The trial court’s findings that the tapes were inadmissible because not based on the declarants’ first-hand knowledge and were also vague and inconclusive,

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2005 WI App 265, reversed, 2007 WI 74
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Lackershire, an adult female convicted of sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, established a prima facie case for plea-withdrawal due to lack of adequate understanding of the elements.

Holding:

¶8        Initially, we note that in a plea withdrawal motion like Lackershire’s,

State v. Gwendolyn McGee, 2005 WI App 97
For McGee: Amelia L. Bizarro

Issue/Holding: The disobedient-child defense to a compulsory-attendance charge is an affirmative defense issue to be presented to the fact-finder at trial for resolution (as opposed to disposition by pretrial motion).

State v. Tyrone Booker, 2005 WI App 182
For Booker: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding: Defense cross-examination focusing on inconsistencies in statements of the alleged victim permitted the State to read her entire first statement to the jury under the completeness doctrine; State v. Eugenio, 210 Wis. 2d 347, 565 N.W.2d 798 (Ct. App. 1997), followed:

¶25      Here, as in Eugenio,