On Point blog, page 5 of 7
Sentencing Sexual Assault-Child, § 948.02(1)(b): Mandatory Min., Probation-Ineligible
State v. Tony J. Lalicata, 2012 WI App 138 (recommended for publication); case activity
Probation is not an available disposition under § 948.02(1)(b) (child sexual assault). By mandating that “the court shall impose a bifurcated sentence” with a confinement portion of at least 25 years for that offense, § 939.616 forecloses the possibility of probation:
¶14 … We conclude instead that § 939.616(1r) unambiguously prohibits probation,
Probation: DOC Discharge Certificate (§ 973.09(5)) Wrongly Issued, Prior to Expiration of Term; Certiorari Review: Equitable Estoppel Inapplicable
Ardonis Greer v. David H. Schwarz, 2012 WI App 122, petition for review granted 6/12/13, affirmed, 2014 WI 19; case activity
DOC Discharge Certificate (Probation, § 973.09(5)) – Wrongly Issued, Prior to Expiration of Term of Probation
As a function of “administrative error,” the department of corrections issued Greer a discharge certificate before his term of probation had expired.
Extended Supervision Conditions – Suspicionless Searches; Battery to Law Officer, § 940.20(2) – Elements: Acting in Official Capacity
Wisconsin State v. Tally Ann Rowan, 2012 WI 60, on certification review ; case activity
Extended Supervision Conditions – Suspicionless Searches
A condition of extended supervision “that allows any law enforcement officer to search [Tally]’s person, vehicle, or residence for firearms, at any time and without probable cause or reasonable suspicion,” was tailored to the particular facts and thus neither overbroad nor unrelated to Tally’s rehabilitative needs.
Mootness Doctrine – Generally ; Probation – Conditions – No-Contact Order
State v. Matthew O. Roach, 2011AP2105-CR, District 4, 5/17/12
court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roach: Brandon Kuhl; case activity
Mootness Doctrine – Generally
¶8 n. 2:
The State also contends that this issue is moot because the condition of probation Roach challenges expired on January 19, 2012. An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.
Effective Assistance of Counsel – Revocation of Supervision, Generally; Parole Hold – DOC Jurisdiction to Revoke
State ex rel. Gerald Porter v. Cockroft, 2011AP308, 2011AP308, District 1, 3/6/12
court of appeals decision (not recommended for publication); for Porter: Joseph E. Redding; case activity
Ineffective assistance of counsel at a revocation hearing is reviewable by habeas corpus, ¶10, citing State v. Ramey, 121 Wis. 2d 177, 182, 359 N.W.2d 402 (Ct. App. 1984). But, because there is no right to counsel on review of a revocation order,
Probation – Length of Term, Authority to Reduce
State v. Carl L. Dowdy, 2012 WI 12, affirming 2010 WI App 58; for Dowdy: Bryan J. Cahill; Amicus: Dustin Haskell (SPD), Robert Henak (WACDL); case activity
¶4 We conclude that Wis. Stat. § 973.09(3)(a) does not grant a circuit court authority to reduce the length of probation. Rather, the plain language of § 973.09(3)(a) grants a circuit court authority only to “extend probation for a stated period”
Extended Supervision Conditions – Limits on Fourth Amendment Rights
State v. Tally Ann Rowan, 2010AP1398-CR, rev. granted 10/25/11
on certification request (District 3/4); for Rowan: LaZotte, Paul G.; case activity
Issue (from Certification):
The issue presented by this appeal is whether a sentencing court violated the Fourth Amendment or Wis. Const. art. I, § 11, by setting a condition of extended supervision that allows any law enforcement officer to search the defendant’s person, vehicle,
State v. Tally Ann Rowan, 2010AP1398-CR, District 3/4, 7/28/11
certification; for Rowan: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate; case activity; review granted, 10/25/11
Extended Supervision Conditions – Limits on Fourth Amendment Rights
The issue presented by this appeal is whether a sentencing court violated the Fourth Amendment or Wis. Const. art. I, § 11, by setting a condition of extended supervision that allows any law enforcement officer to search the defendant’s person,
Parole: Mootness Doctrine, rel. to Deferment – Review of Deferment, Risk-Determination
Harlan Richards v. Graham, 2011 WI App 100(recommended for publication); for Richards: Kendall W. Harrison, Jennifer L. Gregor; case activity
Mootness Doctrine
Challenge to Parole Commission decision to increase deferment period from 10 to 12 months, and to Program Review Committee decision to increase security status, not rendered moot by subsequent parole and program hearings.
¶11 An issue is moot when a party seeks a determination that will have no practical effect on an existing legal controversy.
State v. Carl L. Dowdy, 2010 WI App 58, review granted 3/16/11
court of appeals decision; for Dowdy: Bryan J. Cahill; Amicus: Dustin Haskell (SPD), Robert Henak (WACDL); case activity
Issues (formulated by On Point):
Whether authority granted a circuit court by § 973.09(3)(a) to “extend probation for a stated period or modify the terms and conditions thereof,” includes the power to reduce the length of the term of probation.
Whether a circuit court has inherent authority to reduce the length of the term of probation.