On Point: A. Type pf PCM

State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed
For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised discretion in granting the state’s motion to vacate an SVP order for supervised release entered, but not implemented, almost four years earlier.

Holding: Under § 806.07(1)(h), there is no deadline for relieving a party from a judgment or order, so long as “extraordinary circumstances”

State v. John Casteel, 2001 WI App 188, PFR filed

Issue: Whether defendant is entitled to have reviewed on the merits issues that either were, or could have been, raised on prior appeals.

Holding:

¶13. On appeal, Casteel raises three arguments, two of which we previously have addressed. He provides no reasoning why he could not have raised these arguments in his direct appeal or first Wis.

State v. Everardo A. Lopez, 2001 WI App 265
For Lopez: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether plea withdrawal is the appropriate remedy where the record contains no evidence that Lopez understood all elements of the offense

Holding:

¶22. The proper remedy upon determining that the State failed to establish that Lopez understood the elements of the offense with which he was charged when he entered his no contest plea is to remand the case to permit Lopez to withdraw his plea. 

State v. Everardo A. Lopez, 2001 WI App 265
For Lopez: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Lopez made a prima facie showing that the plea colloquy was inadequate.

Holding: The Spanish-speaking Lopez had problems, acknowledged by the trial court, communicating with his interpreter and necessitating a continuance of the plea hearing. At neither the aborted plea hearing or the subsequent one at which the plea was accepted did the trial court determine,

State v. Joseph Scaccio III, 2000 WI App 265, 240 Wis.2d 95
For Scaccio: Jim D. Scott

Issue: Whether Scaccio’s motion to modify a sentencing imposed after revocation was untimely because he failed to appeal the original judgment of conviction.

Holding/Analysis: The principle is readily stated — you can take a direct appeal of a sentence imposed after revocation — but a certain amount of elaboration is unfortunately required.

State v. Delano J. O’Brien, 223 Wis.2d 303, 588 N.W.2d 8 (1999), reconsideration denied, 225 Wis.2d 247, 591 N.W.2d 846 (1999), affirming 214 Wis.2d 327, 572 N.W.2d 870 (Ct. App. 1997)
For O’Brien: Martin E. Kohler, John C. Thomure, Jr.

Issue/Holding: O’Brien sought to obtain certain exhibits for postconviction testing. Though the court of appeals enunciated certain guidelines for such postconviction discovery, State v. O’Brien, 214 Wis.

.State v. Bobby G. Grant, 230 Wis.2d 90, 601 N.W.2d 8 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Grant: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Grant’s waiver of jury trial was invalid because the trial court failed to advise that the verdict must be unanimous.

Holding: The procedure applicable to challenging guilty pleas, State v. Bangert, 131 Wis. 2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986) applies to this context;

State v. Joseph Schultz, 224 Wis.2d 499, 591 N.W.2d 904 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Schultz: Robert R. Raehsler

Issue/Holding: A party in a civil case may seek relief from judgment under Wis. Stats., § 806.07. Where the basis for the motion is “mistake,” the primary question is whether the party’s conduct “was excusable under the circumstances.” Schultz should have been allowed to reopen a judgment so that he could litigate a crucial issue that he justifiably,

State ex rel. Phillip I. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), affirming 211 Wis. 2d 708, 566 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1997) / State v. Phillip I. Warren, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), on certification
For Warren: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue: Whether Warren was entitled to appointment of counsel for postconviction proceedings.

Holding (¶66):

¶66 Warren’s motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Wis.

State v. Spriggie Hensley, Jr., 221 Wis. 2d 473, 585 N.W.2d 683 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Hensley: Pro se

Issue/Holding: The rule that a defendant’s representation by the same attorney at trial and on direct appeal constitutes a “sufficient reason” for not asserting ineffective assistance of counsel in the direct appeal survives State v. Escalona-Naranjo, 185 Wis.2d 168, 517 N.W.2d 157 (1994).