On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Bart C. Gruetzmacher, 2004 WI 55, on certification
For Gruetzamacher: Jennelle London Joset

Issue/Holding:

¶14. We now decide whether circuit courts should be allowed to correct obvious errors in sentencing where it is clear that a good faith mistake was made in an initial sentencing pronouncement, where the court promptly recognizes the error, and where the court, by reducing an erroneous original sentence on one count and increasing the original sentence on another,

State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision
For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth

Issue/Holding:

¶41 The State urges us to hold that Wis. Stat. § 980.08(6m), not § 806.07(1)(h), applies and the State seeks relief from a chapter 980 committee’s status of supervised release when the committee has not yet been released on supervised release. The State asks this court to hold that the Department of Health and Family Services may petition for revocation of supervised release under Wis.

State ex rel Ralph A. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58
For Kalal: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding:

¶17 A “writ of supervision is not a substitute for an appeal.” State ex rel. Dressler v. Circuit Court for Racine County, 163 Wis. 2d 622, 630, 472 N.W.2d 532 (Ct. App. 1991). The decision whether to issue a supervisory writ “is controlled by equitable principles and,

State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265
For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee App
Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School

Issue/Holding: (The singular importance of this case requires this very lengthy excerpt, albeit without the footnotes which don’t seem to add substantive content.)

¶38. In light of the increased responsibility placed upon the sentencing court,

State v. Robert C. Deilke, 2004 WI 104, reversing 2003 WI App 151, 266 Wis. 2d 274, 667 N.W.2d 867
For Deilke: Kelly J. McKnight

Issue/Holding:

¶28 The primary purpose of the statute of limitations is to protect the accused from criminal consequences for remote past actions. State v. Jennings, 2003 WI 10, ¶15, 259 Wis.

State v. Daniel Wyatt Henning, 2004 WI 89, reversing 2003 WI App 54, 261 Wis. 2d. 664, 660 N.W.2d 698
For Henning: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “¶41. Thus, the critical question is this: When a jury, in a multicount trial, both convicts and acquits, and an appellate court then overturns the conviction or convictions, do the acquitted charges pose any direct bar to retrial of the reversed convictions?” (In this case,

State v. Kevin Harris, 2004 WI 64, affirming as modified 2003 WI App 144, 266 Wis. 2d 200, 667 N.W.2d 813
For Harris: Steven A. Koch

Issue/Holding:

¶12 In Brady, the United States Supreme Court held that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment,

State v. Michael D. Jackson, 2004 WI 29, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Jackson: Joseph E. Schubert

Issue/Holding:

¶42 Applying the rule of lenity, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(b)6 should be read together with Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(c) in calculation of the maximum term of confinement for unclassified felonies with penalty enhancers under TIS-I. We apply the 75% rule of Wis.

State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148
For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin

Issue/Holding:

¶58. Carprue contends that he was denied his due process right to a fair trial because Judge Schellinger was not impartial. His evidence consists of the judge’s actions in calling and questioning Morrow and in questioning Carprue.¶59. “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.”

State v. Joshua O. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, affirming court of appeals’ unpublished decision
For Kyles: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a per se rule should be adopted allowing a frisk whenever individuals fail to comply with police directives to keep their hands out of their pockets.

Holding:

¶48. We do not adopt, as the State urges,