On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Scott R. Nelson, 2007 WI App 2, PFR filed 1/22/07
For Nelson: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: ¶7 n. 3:

Because Nelson is making facial challenges to the constitutionality of chapter 980, the State’s assertion that Nelson has waived his constitutional arguments lacks merit. See State v. Bush, 2005 WI 103, ¶19,

State v. David M. Larsen, 2007 WI App 147, PFR filed 5/31/07
For Larsen: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18 The parties express some confusion over whether an officer’s subjective motivations are relevant in determining whether his or her actions violate the Fourth Amendment in emergency doctrine matters. Recent cases from our supreme court and the United States Supreme Court clarify that whether a warrantless home entry is justified based on the need to render assistance or prevent harm is judged by an objective test. 

State v. Pdero L. Nieves, 2007 WI App 189, PFR filed 7/6/07
For Nieves: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding:

¶13 We conclude that probable cause to arrest for obstruction existed. An accumulation of factors contributed to Olsen’s suspicion that “Anthony Otero” was a false name which, in turn, led to the search. Olsen had been maintaining surveillance on a known drug house and a vehicle bearing plates registered to a known drug dealer’s vehicle.

State ex rel. Steven M. Rupinski v. Smith, 2007 WI App 4
For Rupinski: Daniel R. Drigot

Issue/Holding: ¶12 n. 3:

The State challenges the venue of Milwaukee County as improper because Rupinski is confined at the Oshkosh Correctional Institution located in Winnebago County. The State argues that, as a result, the writ was improperly filed under Wis. Stat. § 801.50(4).  The proper venue for writ of habeas corpus shall be in the county “[w]here the plaintiff was convicted or sentenced if the action seeks relief from a judgment of conviction or sentence under which the plaintiff’s liberty is restrained” or “[w]here the liberty of the plaintiff is restrained if the action seeks relief concerning any other matter relating to a restraint on the liberty of the plaintiff.” Wis.

State v. Mark J. Roou, 2007 WI App 193
For Roou: John P. Tedesco, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the defendant was entitled to plea-withdrawal on both plea-based counts or only the one count as to which the plea was defective (given that the State promised not to re-prosecute the latter count).

Holding1:

¶16 Roou contends that under Wisconsin law the trial court should have permitted him to withdraw from the entire plea agreement.

State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification
For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Amicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales
Issue/Holding:

¶17      Article I, Section 21(1) of the Wisconsin Constitution and Wis. Stat. § 808.03(1) guarantee a person convicted of a crime in Wisconsin the right to appeal his or her conviction to the court of appeals.

State v. Rachel W. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, reversing unpublished decision
For Kelty: Michael J. Fairchild

Issue/Holding:

¶2     We are asked to decide whether an otherwise satisfactory guilty plea is sufficient to relinquish a double jeopardy/multiplicity challenge upon direct appeal. We conclude that a guilty plea relinquishes the right to assert a multiplicity claim when the claim cannot be resolved on the record.

State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, affirming, 2004 WI App 39
For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: An order granting the State’s motion to reconsider an SVP’s supervised release was final and appealable:

¶26      We disagree with Schulpius’s characterization of the November 2000 order. Even though the circuit court did not initially characterize it as a final order,

State v. David R. Kaster, 2006 WI App 72, PFR filed 4/26/06; prior appeal: 2003 WI App 105
For Kaster: Robert R. Kaster

Issue/Holding:

¶9 Kaster next argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the disorderly conduct charge. …. Kaster has not demonstrated a “sufficient reason” under § 974.06(4) to overcome the fact that he failed to raise his challenge on direct appeal.

State v. Wayne Delaney, 2006 WI App 37
Pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶7        To have his sentence modified, Delaney must overcome two hurdles. First, he must demonstrate that a new factor exists. If so, he next must demonstrate that the new factor warrants sentence modification. State v. Franklin, 148 Wis.  2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989). Whether a fact or set of facts constitutes a new factor is a question of law this court decides without deference to the circuit court’s determination.