On Point: Uncategorized

State v. James S. Riedel, 2003 WI App 18, PFR filed 1/27/03
For Riedel: Ralph A. Kalal

Issue/Holding: Police not required to obtain warrant in order to test blood seized pursuant to Implied Consent Law; State v. VanLaarhoven, 2001 WI App 275 extended (VanLaarhoven consented to initial seizure, Riedel didn’t). ¶¶11-16.

State ex rel. William E. Marberry v. Macht, 2003 WI 79, reversing 2002 WI App 133, 254 Wis. 2d 690, 648 N.W.2d 522
For Marberry: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶23. The extraordinary relief provided by the writ of habeas corpus is available only in limited circumstances and is subject to three prerequisites. Haas ,

State v. Leonard C. Matson, 2003 WI App 253
For Matson: Michael Yovovich, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where counsel had raised a pre-sentencing objection on ground of plea bargain breach to the use of a detective’s letter to the court asking for a sentence exceeding the bargained length, failure to raise further objection at sentencing did not constitute waiver:

¶32. Matson sufficiently preserved his objections to the letter for appeal.

State v. Rodney K. Stenseth, 2003 WI App 198, PFR filed 9/2/03
For Stenseth: Robert A. Ferg

Issue/Holding: The state did not violate the plea bargain, which limited its recommended disposition to two years’ confinement plus extended supervision, by expressing agreement with some portions of the PSI (which recommended 8 years’ confinement plus supervision):

¶12. Here, the State’s reference to the plea agreement was not less than neutral.

State v. James E. Multaler, 2002 WI 35, affirming 2001 WI App 14, 246 Wis. 2d 752, 632 N.W.2d 89
For Multaler: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue/Holding: The affidavit in support of search warrant established probable cause to believe that Multaler was guilty of homicide, ¶¶13-28: he was tied directly and circumstantially to the victims; his actions were consistent with those of a serial killer (he kept an album of photos ans newspaper articles of missing and murdered females;

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.