On Point blog, page 131 of 133
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Newly Discovered Evidence – Recantation
State v. Dennis J. Kivioja, 225 Wis.2d 271, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999), on certification
For Kivioja: Mark G. Sukowaty.
Issue/Holding: Kivioja pleaded guilty after his codefendant, Stehle, implicated him in a string of burglaries. Following his own sentencing and prior to Kivioja’s, Stehle recanted and Kivioja moved to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing; the court of appeals certified the appeal,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge — Elements — Incomplete Advice in Plea Questionnaire Irrelevant Where Plea Court Relies Exclusively on Oral Colloquy
State v. Michael Brandt, 226 Wis.2d 610, 594 N.W.2d 759 (1999), affirming State v. Brandt, 220 Wis.2d 121, 582 N.W.2d 433 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Brandt: Michael J. Fitzgerald & Dean A. Strang.
Holding:
¶24 Where, as here, a circuit court ignores the plea questionnaire in its colloquy concerning the elements of the crimes, the adequacy of that colloquy rises or falls on the circuit court’s discussion at the plea hearing.
Guilty Pleas – Entry of Plea by Defendant — Express, Personal Entry is “Preferred” but Unnecessary So Long As Intent to Enter Plea Is Only Inference Possible
State v. Darrin D. Burns, 226 Wis.2d 762, 594 N.W.2d 799 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Burns: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶3 We affirm the judgment of conviction in this case, even though the defendant did not expressly and personally articulate a plea of no contest on the record in open court, because the only inference possible from the totality of the facts and circumstances in the record is that the defendant intended to plead no contest.
Rape-Shield, § 972.11(2)(b) – Assault by 3d Party – Alternative Source of Sexual Knowledge
State v. Richard Dodson, 219 Wis.2d 65, 580 N.W.2d 181 (1998), unpublished decision below.
For Dodson: Michael J. Backes
Issue/Holding: Applying the test of State v. Pulizzano, 155 Wis. 2d 633, 647-48, 456 N.W.2d 325 (1990), the court finds evidence of prior sexual assaults necessary “to rebut the logical and weighty inference that the victim gained sexual knowledge because the defendant committed the acts charged,”
Doubke Jeopardy – Multiplicity: Bail Jumping – Single Bond, Different Conditions
State v. Daniel Anderson, 219 Wis.2d 739, 580 N.W.2d 329 (1998), reversing State v. Anderson, 214 Wis. 2d 126, 570 N.W.2d 872 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Anderson: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether violating different conditions of a single bond supports multiple bail jumping counts.
Holding: Anderson, released on an otherwise unrelated case, was ordered as a condition of bail not to drink or have contact with the victim.
Right to Counsel – Postconviction Proceedings, Collateral Attack
State ex rel. Phillip I. Warren v. Schwarz, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), affirming 211 Wis. 2d 708, 566 N.W.2d 173 (Ct. App. 1997) / State v. Phillip I. Warren, 219 Wis.2d 615, 579 N.W.2d 698 (1998), on certification
For Warren: Ralph A. Kalal
Issue: Whether Warren was entitled to appointment of counsel for postconviction proceedings.
Holding (¶66):
¶66 Warren’s motion for post-conviction relief pursuant to Wis.
Common Law Privileges – Right to Resist Unlawful Arrest
State v. Shonna Hobson, 218 Wis.2d 350, 577 N.W.2d 825 (1998), on certification
For Hobson: Keith A. Findley, John A. Pray, LAIP, UW Law School
Holding: Wisconsin recognizes a common law privilege to forcibly resist an unlawful arrest (i.e., w/o made w/o probable cause); but having recognized that privilege, the court simultaneously abrogates it (albeit prospectively only, because of ex post facto concerns). The holding is limited to “unlawful interference with the person”
Double Jeopardy – Successive Prosecutions
State v. Prokopios G. Vassos, 218 Wis.2d 330, 579 N.W.2d 35 (1998), on certification
For Vassos: Edmund C. Carns
Holding: Successive prosecution for misdemeanor battery (§ 940.19(1)), following acquittal of felony battery (§ 940.19(3)) arising from same incident, wasn’t barred by double jeopardy. Successive prosecutions are barred under § 939.71 when the subsequent charge is the “same” offense under the “elements-only” test. That test isn’t met here,
First Amendment – Overbreadth – Flag Desecration
State v. Matthew C. Janssen, 219 Wis.2d 362, 580 N.W.2d 260 (1998), affirming 213 Wis. 2d 471, 570 N.W.2d 746 (Ct. App. 1997)
For Janssen: Eugene A. Bartman, Brian G. Figy, SPD, Appleton Trial
Issue: Whether the flag desecration statute is constitutional.
Holding: The flag desecration statute, sec. 946.05, violates first amendment overbreadth principles, and can’t be saved by severing the unconstitutional portions.
Public Records/Reports, § 908.03(8) — DOT pamphlet
Malvern Sullivan v. Waukesha County, 218 Wis.2d 458, 578 N.W.2d 596 (1998), on certification
For Sullivan: William A. Denny
Holding: A DOT training pamphlet, explaining physical and mental impairment as the level of alcohol concentration increases, is held admissible under the sec. 908.03(8) (public records and reports) exception to the hearsay rule. The court stresses that the pamphlet’s data “are factual and were made pursuant to the department’s duty to administer and enforce the laws….”