On Point: Uncategorized

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Issue/Holding: Citation to an unpublished 7th Circuit case is proper, ¶18 n. 6: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 Rule 809.23(3) does not prohibit us from citing unpublished opinions from other jurisdictions.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,

State v. Gregg A. Pfaff, 2004 WI App 31
For Pfaff: Rex Anderegg

Issue/Holding: Probable cause to arrest for OWI upheld on following facts as found by trial court:

¶20. … Metzen’s decision not to perform field sobriety testing was reasonable in light of Pfaff’s injuries. Metzen is an experienced officer and has processed many defendants for OWI. Metzen was at the scene of the accident and,

State v. Jacob J. Faust, 2004 WI 99, reversing 2004 WI App 243, 267 Wis. 2d 783, 672 N.W.2d 97
For Faust: Stephen M. Seymour

Issue: “(W)hether, under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution, exigent circumstances exist for a nonconsensual warrantless blood draw after the police have obtained what the arresting officer believes to be a voluntary,

State v. Victor Naydihor, 2004 WI 43, affirming 2002 WI App 272, 258 Wis. 2d 746, 654 N.W.2d 479

For Naydihor: Philip J. Brehm

Issue: Whether the State’s allocution amounted to an end-run violation of its obligation to recommend probation at sentencing by stressing Naydihor’s “lengthy history of polysubstance abuse,” his presentation of danger to the community, harm he caused the victim,

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

Issue: Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement, which called for recommendation of probation but left a free hand to argue terms and conditions, by expressly referring to the possibility of treatment in a prison setting and by implicitly endorsing PSI and sex offender report recommendations for prison.

Holding:

¶21 Turning back to Sprang’s claim,

State v. Jesse Liukonen, 2004 WI App 157
For Liukonen: Russell L. Hanson

Issue:Whether the State breached the plea agreement to cap its sentencing recommendation at a total of 17 years’ incarceration, by asserting: “the more I looked at this case, the more I heard from the victims, the more I argue today, I realize that Mr. Liukonen I think got an extreme break by the system here”;