On Point: Uncategorized

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State v. Rachel W. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, reversing unpublished decision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. 

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.