On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Carlos Perez, 2001 WI 79, reversing State v. Perez, 2000 WI App 115, 235 Wis. 2d 238, 612 N.W.2d 374
For Perez: R. Douglas Stansbury

Issue/Holding:

¶1 … The issue presented is whether a person who is convicted of carrying a concealed and dangerous weapon under Wis. Stat. § 941.23 (1997-98) has ‘committed a crime involving the use of the dangerous weapon,’

State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Kelsey’s detention was prolonged beyond its proper purpose.

Holding: The operative principle is settled: “an investigative detention … must last only long enough to fulfill the purpose of the stop.” ¶44. Applying that principle — (3-vote lead opinion:) The purpose of the stop was to dispel the idea that she was up to criminal activity;

State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the police seizure of Kelsey, after she fled upon encountering them, was based on reasonable suspicion that she had committed, or was about to commit, a crime.

Holding: (Lead, 3-vote opinion:)

¶42 … Upon de novo review, we conclude that the circuit court’s determination that Kelsey’s appearance,

State v. Charles J. Hajicek, 2001 WI 3, 240 Wis. 2d 349, 620 N.W.2d 781, reversing 230 Wis. 2d 697, 602 N.W.2d 93 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Hajicek: Bruce J. Rosen, Susan C. Blesener

Issue1: Whether a trial court finding that a search conducted jointly by probation and police agents was a police rather than probation search is reviewed deferentially.

Holding:

¶2 ….

State v. Jeremy J. Hanson, 2001 WI 70, 244 Wis. 2d 405, 628 N.W.2d 759, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Hanson: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether a guilty or no contest plea waives the right to challenge the defendant’s status as an habitual traffic offender, and the right to challenge the HTO sentencing penalty as unauthorized.

Holding:

¶21. Section 973.13 requires Wisconsin courts to declare a sentence void ‘[i]n any case where the court imposes a maximum penalty in excess of that authorized by law.’

State v. David W. Oakley, 2001 WI 103, 629 N.W.2d 308, reconsideration denied, 2001 WI 123, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Oakley: Timothy T. Kay

Issue: Whether a claim of plea bargain error was waived by a subsequent renegotiation of the plea bargain and entry of no contest plea on that new agreement.

Holding:

¶23  As this court has previously stated,

State v. William G. Johnson, 2001 WI 52, 243 Wis. 2d 365, 627 N.W.2d 455
For Johnson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether § 948.025 (repeated sexual assault of a child) violates the rights to due process and unanimous verdict by not requiring unanimity that each predicate act occurred.

Holding: Unanimity is required on the elements of an offense, but generally not the alternate modes of commission unless required by considerations of due process.

State v. Cherise A. Raflick, 2001 WI 129
For Raflik: Michael J. Fitzgerald, Dean A. Strang

Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case requires us to decide whether suppression is the proper remedy when a telephonic application for a search warrant is not recorded in accordance with Wis. Stat. § 968.12(3)(d)1, and when the factual basis for the warrant is reconstructed in an ex parte hearing after the warrant has been executed.

State ex rel. Ruven Seibert v. Macht, 2001 WI 67, 244 Wis. 2d 378, 627 N.W.2d 881, reconsideration denied2002 WI 12, reversing unpublished court of appeals order
For Seibert: Gregory P. Seibold; amicus brief: Howard B. Eisenberg, Dean, Marquette Law School
Issue/Holding:

¶1. This case presents two issues. The first issue is whether an indigent sexually violent person, as defined by Wis.

State v. Carl R. Kramer, 2001 WI 132, reversing and remanding 2000 WI App 271, 240 Wis. 2d 44, 622 N.W.2d 4
For Kramer: Stephen D. Willett

Issue1: Whether Kramer established a prima facie case for selective prosecution.

Holding: On a selective prosecution claim, the defendant must show both discriminatory purpose and effect. The state concedes discriminatory purpose. As to effect: Prosecutorial selectivity is itself non-problematic.