On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State ex rel Norman O. Brown v. Bradley, 2003 WI 14, on original petition for writ of habeas corpus
For Brown: Greg J. Carman

Issue/Holding:

¶1. The Petitioner, Norman O. Brown, seeks reinstatement of his petition for review which was previously dismissed as untimely filed. Brown contends that this court should apply retroactively the tolling rule for pro se prisoners that it adopted in State ex rel.

State v. John Norman, 2003 WI 72, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Norman: Angela Kachelski

Issue/Holding: Norman’s failure on appeal to develop an argument analytically necessary to the issue he raises waives his right to have that issue reviewed. ¶64.

State v. Phonesavanh Vanmanivong, 2003 WI 41, reversing, 2001 WI App 299
For Vanmanivong: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: Trial court failure to order disclosure of an informant is subject to harmless error analysis. The state, as beneficiary of the error, bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the error didn’t contribute to the verdict. Here, the error was harmless: the error in the trial court’s finding that disclosure was unnecessary was procedural in nature (because it was based on unsworn rather than sworn in camera assertions and because it was procured by the judge rather than the litigants);

State v. William J. Church (II), 2003 WI 74, reversing 2002 WI App 212, 257 Wis. 2d 442, 650 N.W.2d 873; earlier history: State v. William J. Church, 223 Wis.2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998), petition for review dismissed as improvidently granted, 2000 WI 90
For Church: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an increase in sentence on re-sentencing violated due process,

State v. Steven J. Burgess, 2003 WI 71, affirming 2002 WI App 264; habeas relief denied, Steven J. Burgess v. Watters, 467 F.3d 676 (7th Cir 2006)
For Burgess: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether ch. 980 jurisdiction attaches to Native Americans who: are members of a tribe, residents of the tribe’s reservation, and commit the acts involved in the qualifying conviction on the reservation.

State v. Harris D. Byers, 2003 WI 86, reversing unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Byers: Jack E. Schairer & Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶26. A review of the placement of the provisions, together with the legislative history, reflects an intent to create a step-by-step process that must be followed before a district attorney has authority to file a petition.

State v. Steven J. Burgess, 2003 WI 71, affirming 2002 WI App 264, 258 Wis. 2d 548, 654 N.W.2d 81
For Burgess: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶25. Burgess challenges his commitment based on the use of actuarial instruments in his chapter 980 commitment proceeding because they did not take into account his mental health. Consequently, Burgess contends that the instruments are irrelevant for chapter 980 proceedings because there must be a nexus between an offender’s mental disorder and the probability of committing sexually violent acts in the future.

State v. Steven J. Burgess, 2003 WI 71, affirming 2002 WI App 264, 258 Wis. 2d 548, 654 N.W.2d 81
For Burgess: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient, where the state’s expert conceded that respondent could conform his conduct to requirements of the law.

Holding:

¶29. Nevertheless, Burgess claims that the expert testimony presented at trial,

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; prior history omitted
For Marberry: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶19. As we have noted, Chapter 980 is a civil commitment statute with dual objectives: protection of the public and treatment of persons with dangerous mental disorders.

State v. Tommie L. Cole, 2003 WI 59, on certification
For Cole: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶9. The court of appeals asks that we determine what combination of confinement in prison and extended supervision constitutes the presumptive minimum sentence when a statute provides that an offender “shall be imprisoned for not less than 3 years.”10 In other words,