On Point: 9. Crimes

State v. Henry T. Skibinski, 2001 WI App 109, 244 Wis. 2d 229, 629 N.W.2d 12
For Skibinski: Karma S. Rodgers

Issue: Whether a trial court can, after findings of guilt on second and third offense OWI, apply the increased penalties of OWI-3rd to both offenses at sentencing.

Holding: For several reasons, the sentence for OWI-2nd was limited to the applicable penalty for that discrete offense, even though the defendant was simultaneously being sentenced for OWI-3rd: a prior conviction is an element of OWI,

State v. William P. Eckola, 2001 WI App 295
For Eckola: Gregory A. Parker

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion by placing Eckola on probation for OWI-6th without requiring confinement for at least the presumptive minimum mandated by § 346.65(2)(e).

Holding:

¶15. When the circuit court, in its discretion, determines that a defendant will be placed on probation, Wis. Stat. § 973.09(1)(d) requires that the person be confined for at least the mandatory minimum period.

State v. Jefrey S. Kimbrough, 2001 WI App 138, PFR filed 6/25/01
For Kimbrough: Glenn C. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the evidence satisfied the reckless-conduct element, in particular that the defendant was subjectively aware of the risks in shaking a baby who died as a result.

Holding: The jury was entitled to draw a finding of guilt on this element from competing inferences: Though defendant’s intelligence was “limited,”

Lavelle Chambers v. McCaughtry, 264 F.3d 732 (7th Cir 2001)
For Chambers: John T. Wasielewski

Issue/Holding: Chambers is liable for the killing of a police officer by Chambers’ codefendant, while the pair were trying to flee apprehension during commission of a felony (armed burglary).

State v. Scott Leason Badker, 2001 WI App 27, 240 Wis. 2d 460, 623 N.W.2d 142
For Badker: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction for “hiding” corpse, § 940.11(2).

Holding: By dumping the deceased’s body into a 6-foot-deep, water-lined ditch in a secluded wildlife refuge, Badker satisfied the element of “hiding” under § 940.11(2).

State v. Murle E. Perkins, 2000 WI App 137, 237 Wis. 2d 313, 614 N.W.2d 25, reversed on other grounds, State v. Perkins, 2001 WI 46, ¶2 n. 2
For Perkins: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a conditional threat to shoot a judge, made by a drunk and very depressed individual just before being taken into Ch. 51 emergency detention,

State v. Tyren E. Black, 2001 WI 31, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363
For Black: Michael S. Holzman

Issue: Whether the defendant’s admission of “handling” a gun established the element of “possesses” a firearm under § 941.29(2), for purposes of establishing a guilty plea factual basis.

Holding:

¶19 At the outset, we note the absence of any mens rea5 requirement in this statute.

State v. Eileen M. Entringer, 2001 WI App 157
For Entringer: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, for purposes of the forgery statute, a person can falsely make a postal order by writing in the name of someone else as the payer.

Holding: Because forgery applies only to falsehoods that materially affect the document’s legal efficacy; and because “the money order was as good as cash,” listing another name as payer “had nothing to do with the genuineness of the execution of the money order” and “does not constitute ‘falsely making’ the money order.” ¶17.

State v. Jason J. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77, 244 Wis. 2d 523, 628 N.W.2d 801, affirming State v. Trawitzki, 2000 WI App 205, 238 Wis. 2d 795, 618 N.W.2d 884
For Trawitzki: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether multiple charges of theft of firearms taken at the same time, and multiple charges of concealing those firearms, violated double jeopardy.

Holding: Multiplicity is a two-part test: determine whether the offenses are identical in both law and fact;

State v. Alfredo Ramirez, 2001 WI App 158, PFR filed 7/11/01
For Ramirez: Elizabeth A. Cavendish-Sosinski

Issue: Whether § 943.201(2) creates a continuing offense such that, as applied to Ramirez, it did not violate the ex post facto clause even though the statute was promulgated after he commenced the activity that formed the basis for the charge.

Holding:

¶18. We hold that Ramirez obtained money in the form of wages,