On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Jack W. Klubertanz, 2006 WI App 71, PFR filed 4/14/06
For Klubertanz: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether attack on a sentence as harsh and excessive is limited to factors present at the time of sentencing, or may instead be based on post-sentencing events such that as in this instance a claim that the defendant had been sexually assaulted in prison after sentencing might support a harsh-and-excessive sentence reduction.

State v. Jeffrey Lorenzo Searcy, 2006 WI App 8
For Searcy: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding1:

¶23      Searcy claims the only evidence linking him to the Hoffman burglary was his fingerprint on the window screen in the Hoffmans’ bedroom. He argues that the mere presence of his fingerprint, standing alone, is insufficient to connect him to the burglary. Because there is other evidence supporting Searcy’s conviction,

State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, reversing 2004 WI App 9
For Terrell C.J.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Juvenile Jerrell C.J.’s in-custody confession was involuntary under totality of the circumstances – Jerrell’s “personal characteristics” militate against voluntariness: age (14); school records (average to failing grades) and IQ 84 (low to average); prior experience with law enforcement (limited, but including arrests for minor offenses that,

State v. Scott Edward Ziegler, 2005 WI App 69
For Ziegler: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a trial court retains authority to order restitution 14 years after entering a “to be determined” restitution order in the original judgment of conviction.

Holding:

¶11. As we have repeatedly explained, “Restitution is governed by Wis. Stat. § 973.20, which requires courts to order full or partial restitution ‘under this section’

State v. William E. Draughon III, 2005 WI App 162, (AG’s) PFR filed
For Draughton: Stephen L. Miller

Issue/Holding: Although failure to instruct the jury on an element is subject to harmless error analysis per State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶¶44, 49, 254 Wis. 2d 442, 647 N.W.2d 189, in this instance the error was not harmless because the omission related to “a key dispute between the parties,” and “contestability of an element goes to whether the instructional error was harmless,” ¶17.

State v. Edward W. Fisher, 2005 WI App 175
For Fisher: Eileen Miller Carter

Issue/Holding:

¶21      Fisher argues that the circuit court did not satisfy the mandate in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶¶39, 76, 678 N.W.2d 197, that the court exercise its discretion on a “rational and explainable basis.” We understand him to assert that the court should have explained with specificity the comparative weight it ascribed to each factor and exactly how these factors translated into a specific number of years.

State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler

Issue/Holding: Citation to an unpublished 7th Circuit case is proper, ¶18 n. 6:

Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.23(3) does not prohibit us from citing unpublished opinions from other jurisdictions. Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46, ¶12 n.7, 260 Wis. 2d 323, 660 N.W.2d 1,

State v. Brian W. Sprang:, 2004 WI App 121
For Sprang: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶13 Before addressing Sprang’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, we must first address whether there was, in fact, a material and substantial breach of the plea agreement. State v. Naydihor, 2004 WI 43, ¶9, ___ Wis. 2d ___, 678 N.W.2d 220.

State v. Edward Leon Jackson, 2004 WI App 190, PFR filed 10/15/04
For Jackson: Meredith J. Ross, LAIP, UW Law School

Issue/Holding:

¶4 The State, relying on State v. Kohler, 2001 WI App 253, 248 Wis. 2d 259, 635 N.W.2d 838, argues that because Jackson did not raise a multiplicity challenge at trial,

State v. Jason C. Miller, 2004 WI App 117, PFR filed 6/7/04
For Miller: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Claim preclusion doesn’t bind subsequent action involving exclusion of evidence due to discovery violation, where sanctioned case was dismissed and then reissued and discovery begun anew::

¶26. We conclude that claim preclusion is not applicable for two independent reasons. First, as is evident from the name of this doctrine,