On Point blog, page 63 of 96
State v. Gerard W. Carter, 2008AP3144-CR, Wis SCt review, 3/9/10
decision below: 2009 WI App 156; for Carter: Craig M. Kuhary
Issues:
Do violations of Illinois’ zero tolerance (absolute sobriety) law count as prior offenses for sentence enhancement purposes under Wisconsin’s Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) Law (Wis. Stat. §§ 346.63 and 346.65)?
What methodology are trial courts to employ in determining whether to count out-of-state OWI-related offenses for sentence enhancement purposes under Wis. Stat. § 343.307?
State v. Amonte Antoine Jackson, 2008AP3183-CR, District I, 3/9/2010
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication)
Machner Hearing
Postconviction motion conclusory, didn’t require Machner hearing on effective assistance.
Recusal
Judicial comments reflecting attempt to get Jackson to tell truth in connection with asserted problems with lawyer didn’t establish judicial bias.
Sentencing
Sentence taking into account primary factors and much less than maximum penalty not erroneous exercise of discretion.
Sentencing Guidelines: General Purpose – Retroactive Repeal, § 973.017(2)(a); Statutory Construction: § 990.04
State v. Thomas H.L. Barfell, 2010 WI App 61; for Barfell: Roberta A. Heckes; BiC; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.; App. Supp. Br.; Resp. Supp. Br.
Sentencing – Guidelines, General Purpose
¶7 While Barfell is correct that he “has a due process right ‘to be sentenced on the basis of true and correct information’ pertaining to ‘the offense and the circumstances of its commission … and the defendant’s personality,
Johnson v. U.S., USSC No. 08-6925
Armed Career Criminal Act
State conviction for battery, which requires only intentional physical contact no matter how slight, doesn’t qualify as “violent” under federal Armed Career Criminal Act, 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(1).
There appears to be no Wisconsin equivalent to the ACCA, which severely limits the utility of this case for state practice.
State v. Antonio Pugh, 2009AP1313-CR, District I, 2/17/2010
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); BiC; Resp. Br.
“Booking Exception” to Miranda
Questioning to determine Pugh’s “true identity” fell within “booking exception.”
Sentencing Discretion
Sentence upheld where “well within maximum” and addressed “the three primary factors.”
State v. Eliseo T. Brown, 2010 WI App 43
court of appeals decision; for Lee: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; Resp. Br.; Reply Br.
Sentence Credit – Wisconsin Custody under Foreign Parole Hold
Time spent in Wisconsin custody under a foreign parole hold must be credited against the Wisconsin sentence, even though it is ordered “consecutive to any previously imposed sentence.” Concern about “dual credit” is not yet “ripe,” because the foreign jurisdiction has not,
State v. Stanley W. Puchacz, 2010 WI App 30
court of appeals decision; for Puchacz: William M. Hayes
Resp Br
OWI Enhancer, § 346.65(2) – Out-of-State Conviction
Michigan convictions for driving while visibly impaired may be counted as Wisconsin OWI priors, given “broad interpretation and application of the final phrase in Wis. Stat. § 343.307(1)(d) and the public policy supporting our drunk driving laws,” ¶¶12-13.
Traffic Stop – Deviating from Center Line, § 346.05
Crossing center line,
State v. Dione Wendell Haywood, 2009 WI App 178
court of appeals decision; for Haywood: Robert E. Haney
Battery to Peace Officer, § 940.20(2), Elements
It is no defense to battery-to-officer that the officer refused to leave the premises when the resident withdrew consent to enter, because acting “lawfully” is not an element of the offense: “a law-enforcement officer need not be acting ‘lawfully’ for what he or she does to be done in the officer’s ‘official capacity.’
State v. Jeremy D. Schladweiler, 2009 WI App 177
Sentence modification based on new factor; Earned Release Program and Challenge Incarceration Program
State v. Jeremy D. Schladweiler, 2008AP3119-CR, Dist II, 11/11/09
Pro se
Issue/Holding:
¶7 Sentence modification involves a two-step process. State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989). First, a defendant must show the existence of a new factor thought to justify the motion to modify sentence.
State v. Charles Lamar, 2009 WI App 133, review granted
Consecutive sentences following partial plea withdrawal and reconviction
Click here for court of appeals decision, petition for review granted 10/27/10
Defense counsel: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: After sentencing on 3 separate counts, the trial court granted Lamar’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to 2 of the counts. He continued to serve the sentence on the unchallenged count. Upon subsequent reconviction on the 2 counts,