On Point: 45. WI Supreme Court

State v. Vanessa D. Hughes, 2000 WI 24, 233 Wis. 2d 280, 607 N.W.2d 621, reversing unpublished decision, cert. denied, __ U.S. __ (2001)
For Hughes: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.

Issue/Holding:

¶25 In Smith, we recognized four circumstances which, when measured against the time needed to obtain a warrant, constitute the exigent circumstances required for a warrantless entry.

State v. Robert J. Pallone, 2000 WI 77, 236 Wis. 2d 162, 613 N.W.2d 568, affirming State v. Pallone, 228 Wis. 2d 272, 596 N.W.2d 882
For Pallone: Steven J. Watson

Issue: Whether the search of a vehicle passenger’s duffel bag, following the driver’s arrest for the forfeiture offense of having open intoxicants, was proper.

Holding: The search was justified as both incident to arrest and as based on probable cause.

State v. George R. Bollig, 2000 WI 6, 232 Wis. 2d 561, 605 N.W.2d 199, affirming State v. Bollig, 224 Wis.2d 621, 593 N.W.2d 67 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Bollig: Thomas E. Knothe, Collins, Quillin & Knothe, Ltd.

Issue: Whether the trial court’s failure to advise the defendant of an element during the plea colloquy entitled him to withdraw the plea.

Holding: The plea colloquy was deficient,

State v. Terry Thomas, 2000 WI 13, 232 Wis. 2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836, affirming unpublished decision
For Thomas: Jeffrey W. Jensen

Issue: Whether a guilty plea defendant must personally assent to the plea’s factual basis.

Holding:

¶18  This case requires us to determine to what extent a defendant must admit the facts of a crime charged in order to accept the factual basis underlying a guilty plea. 

State v. Charles A. Dunlap, 2002 WI 19, reversing 2000 WI App 251, 239 Wis. 2d 423, 620 N.W.2d 398; affirmed on habeas, Dunlap v. Hepp, 436 F. 3d 739 (7th Cir 2006)
For Dunlap: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: “(W)hether a defendant who is charged with sexual assault should be allowed to present evidence of sexual behavior exhibited by the child complainant prior to the alleged assault,

State v. Anthony D.B., 2000 WI 94, ¶11, 237 Wis. 2d 1, 614 N.W.2d 435
For Anthony D.B.: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether a circuit court has authority, on a Ch. 980 commitment, to order involuntary medication.

Holding: “Because those individuals committed under ch. 980 are defined as ‘patients’ in Wis. Stat. § 51.61(1), we hold that the statutory provision in § 51.61(1)(g),

State v. Robert John Prihoda, 2000 WI 123, 239 Wis. 2d 244, 618 N.W.2d 857, affirming unpublished decision
For Prihoda: Timothy T. Kay

Issue1: “(W)hether the office of the clerk of circuit court may correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a written judgment of conviction without prior court approval.” ¶3.

Holding1: ¶5:

(W)e conclude that the office of the clerk of circuit court does not have the authority to correct a clerical error in the sentence portion of a written judgment of conviction.

State v. Warrick D. Floyd, 2000 WI 14, 232 Wis. 2d 767, 606 N.W.2d 155, on certification
For Floyd: David D. Leeper

Issue: Whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit under Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1) for time spent in custody on a charge that is dismissed and read-in at sentencing.

Holding: Pre-trial confinement on a charge dismissed and read in at sentencing is related to the sentenced offense and therefore qualifies for credit:

¶31  In limiting the statute’s scope,

State v. Gabriel Derango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, affirming State v. DeRango 229 Wis. 2d 1, 599 N.W.2d 27
For Derango: Robert G. LeBell

Issue: Whether conviction for both attempted child sexual exploitation and child enticement as a result of a single act is multiplicitous.

Holding: The two offenses are elementally distinct and therefore aren’t the “same”

State v. Hayes Johnson, 2000 WI 12, 232 Wis. 2d 679, 605 N.W.2d 846, reversing State v. Johnson, 223 Wis. 2d 85, 588 N.W.2d 330
For Johnson: Russell D. Bohach

Issue1: Whether a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness arises from an increase in the charge following grant of mistrial due to hung jury.

Holding: No presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness applies to an increase in charges following mistrial due to hung jury.