On Point: Uncategorized

State v. Glenn E. Davis, 2002 WI 75, reversing and remanding 2001 WI App 210, 247 Wis. 2d 917, 634 N.W.2d 922
For Davis: James M. Shellow

Issue: Whether Richard A.P. evidence — that the defendant lacks the psychological characteristics of a sex offender and, therefore, was unlikely to have committed the charged offense — is admissible.

Holding:

¶15.

State v. William L. Brockett, 2002 WI App 115, PFR filed 5/17/02
For Brockett: Hans P. Koesser
Issue/Hearing: The defendant’s right to personal presence at a postconviction evidentiary hearing hinges on the existence of substantial issues of fact in which the defendant participated. Here, there was a substantial dispute, but it related to a “side issue,” and the defendant therefore had no right to be present in person.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue: Whether delay of 18 months in setting restitution amount deprived court of jurisdiction to enter the restitution order.

Holding: Statutory time limits for setting restitution are regulatory, not jurisdictional, and may be exceeded when there is a valid reason and no prejudice. ¶8. A valid reason existed here: at sentencing Johnson agreed to a delay in setting restitution;

State v. Jeffrey Kenneth Krohn, 2002 WI App 96

Issue: Whether the remedy for a conceded violation in following statutory procedure, including time limit, in determining restitution amount is remand for a restitution hearing under proper procedure.

Holding:

¶13 While we accept Krohn’s challenge to the circuit court’s restitution order, we reject his attempt to prevent the court from properly determining restitution and issuing the appropriate restitution order.

State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02
For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: Reviewing court may address merits of attack on sentence based on inaccurate information, notwithstanding absence of contemporaneous objection. ¶25. It is appropriate here for the court to overlook waiver, where the state concedes that it can’t support the information now challenged; and defendant’s postconviction motion showed that information was inaccurate and also established a basis for believing that he didn’t have an adequate opportunity to refute the information.

State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195
For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient, where a qualified psychologist testified that respondent had two disorders (paraphilia and personality disorder).

  
State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, reversed on other grounds, 2003 WI 89
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: Remedy for a multiplicity violation is left to trial court, applying test in State v. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, ¶57, 249 Wis. 2d 553, 638 N.W.2d 564.

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: Failure of the warrant application to include dismissal of prior criminal charge listed against defendant didn’t mislead judge, who would have inferred that had the charge resulted in conviction that result would have been asserted.

State v. Vernell T. Williams, 2002 WI App 306
For Williams: Michael A. Haakenson

Issue/Holding: Request to search car after purpose of lawful, routine traffic stop satisfied doesn’t make stop unlawful; validity turns on fact-specific inquiry. ¶¶24-25.

Harold C. Lane, Jr., v. Sharp Packaging, 2002 WI 28, on certification

Issue/Holding: Work-product is a “qualified privilege” to refuse disclosure of materials generated by counsel in anticipation of litigation that only gives way upon showing of substantial need along with undue hardship in obtaining the substantial equivalent through other means. ¶61. The trial court erroneously exercised discretion in simply rebuffing the claim of privilege without finding the existence of substantial need preparation in anticipation of litigation.