On Point blog, page 1 of 1
Court of Appeals on enhancing unclassified felony sentences
State v. Tory J. Agnew, 2019AP1785-CR, District 4, 7/30/20 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
The court of appeals affirms the structure of a bifurcated sentence for an unclassified felony to which a sentence enhancer applied, even though the sentence imposed runs afoul of the statutes and prior case law.
Convictions for battery, violation of no contact order upheld
State v. Earnest Lee Nicholson, 2015AP2154-CR & 2015AP2155-CR, 3/7/2017, District 1 (not recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)
Nicholson challenges the validity of the no-contact order he was convicted of violating, and also argues his rights to confrontation and to testify were violated. The court of appeals rejects his claims.
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court of appeals decision (1-judge, not for publication); for Roach: Brandon Kuhl; case activity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.
Sentencing Conditions, § 973.049(2): No-Contact Order – “Victim” Definition
State v. Mark Allan Campbell, 2011 WI App 18; for Campbell: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate; Campbell BiC;State Resp.; Reply
(Issue of plea bargain breach discussed in separate post, here.)
On sentencing Campbell for sexual assault of his daughter, the trial court had, and properly exercised, authority under § 973.049(2) to bar Campbell’s contact with his son until completion of sex offender treatment.