On Point blog, page 125 of 133
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Written Questionnaire Supplying Missing Information
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,
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis — Personal Assent by Defendant not Necessary
State v. Terry Thomas, 2000 WI 13, 232 Wis. 2d 714, 605 N.W.2d 836, affirming unpublished decision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.
Rape-Shield, § 972.11 – Prosecutorial Door-Opening
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,
SVP Commitments: Conditions of Confinement: Involuntary Medication
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),
Sentencing Review – Conflict, Oral Pronouncement & Written Judgment – Correction of Clerical Error in Judgment
State v. Robert John Prihoda, 2000 WI 123, 239 Wis. 2d 244, 618 N.W.2d 857, affirming unpublished decision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.
Sentence Credit – Read-in
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,
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Attempted Child Sexual Exploitation and Child Enticement
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”
Double Jeopardy – Prosecutorial Misconduct: Vindictiveness – increased charge following hung jury
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.
Enhancer — § 939.62(2m)(d), Persistent Offender — Life Without Parole — Cruel and Unusual Punishment
State v. David M. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, on certification; clarified on reconsideration, on a different point, 2001 WI 6
For Hahn: Steven G. Bauer
Issue: “(W)hether the persistent repeater penalty enhancer as applied to the defendant violates the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibiting cruel and unusual punishment.” ¶5.
Holding: Imposing a life sentence without possibility of parole,
Enhancers — Collateral Attack on, as Part of Sentencing Proceeding
State v. David M. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, clarified on reconsideration, 2001 WI 6, on certification
For Hahn: Steven G. Bauer
Issue: “(W)hether the U.S. Constitution requires that an offender be permitted during an enhanced sentence proceeding predicated on a prior conviction to challenge the prior conviction as unconstitutional because the conviction was allegedly based on a guilty plea that was not knowing,