On Point: A. Type pf PCM

State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68
For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”)

Issue/Holding:

¶11. We next address the defendant’s allegation that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it denied his request to file his sentence modification motion under seal. “Documents are presented under seal precisely so that their secrecy might be preserved and disclosure to the public might be prevented.”

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. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71
Tillman, pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The issue on the instant appeal is whether the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo may be applied when a prior appeal was processed under the no merit procedure set forth in Wis. Stat. Rule 809.32. For the reasons stated below, we conclude that the procedural bar of Escalona-Naranjo,

State v. John Allen, 2004 WI 106, affirming unpublished decision
For Allen: Michael J. Backes

Issue/Holding:

¶14 A hearing on a postconviction motion is required only when the movant states sufficient material facts that, if true, would entitle the defendant to relief. …¶15 It has been said repeatedly that a postconviction motion for relief requires more than conclusory allegations. Despite the repetitive theme that such motions require the allegation of sufficient material facts that,

State v. Kenneth A. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99
For Hudson: David D. Cook
Issue/Holding:

¶11. Hudson first argues that under Wis. Stat. § 974.07(6)(a), the State must “make available” physical evidence containing biological material for independent DNA testing. Subsection (6)(a) states:

Upon demand the district attorney shall disclose to the movant or his or her attorney whether biological material has been tested and shall make available to the movant or his or her attorney the following material:1.  

State v. Kenneth A. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99
For Hudson: David D. Cook
Issue/Holding:

¶13. Hudson also argues he is entitled to court-ordered DNA testing under Wis. Stat. § 974.07(7)(a). Subsection (7)(a) requires the trial court to order DNA testing when the following four conditions are met:

A court in which a motion under sub. (2) is filed shall order forensic deoxyribonucleic acid testing if all of the following apply:   1.  

State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2004 WI App 39, PFR granted 4/20/04
For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Pendency of appeal doesn’t prevent trial court from hearing motion to reconsider, ¶33, n. 8:

Second, Schulpius argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant on November 29, 2000, the State’s motion for reconsideration because the case was then on appeal.

State v. Thomas H. Bush (II), 2004 WI App 193, reversed in part, 2005 WI 103
For Bush: Robert G. LeBell

Issue: Whether Bush, on appeal from denial of petition for release from SVP commitment, § 980.09(2), is procedurally barred from challenging the constitutionality of his underlying commitment because he could have raised such challenge in a prior appeal.

Holding:

¶13.

State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals; habeas relief denied, Lo v. Endicott, 7th Cir No. 06-3948, 10/26/07
For Lo: Robert R. Henak
Amicus Briefs: Joseph N. Ehmann, Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD; Meredith J. Ross, Walter J. Dickey, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶2. The petitioner, Anou Lo, asks that we overrule our decision in State v.

State v. Larry G. Edwards, 2003 WI 68, reversing unpublished summary order of court of appeals
For Edwards: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, after the trial court dismissed a criminal case due to violation of intrastate detainer act time limits, the state’s motion for reconsideration was supported by a “new issue,” namely whether the dismissal was with prejudice.

Holding: “We conclude that the State raised a ‘new issue’