On Point blog, page 2 of 7
Appellate Procedure – Review of Discretion Based on Mistaken View of Law
State v. Cesar G., 2004 WI 61, reversing unpublished opinion
For Cesar G.: Eileen Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶46. In contrast to the court of appeals, we view the circuit court’s statement that it was not convinced it had the statutory authority to stay the sex registration requirement as persuasive that it made its decision based on an incorrect view of the law.
Review: Administrative Rule
WCCD v. DNR, 2004 WI 40, affirming 2003 WI App 76, 263 Wis. 2d 370, 661 N.W.2d 858
Issue/Holding:
¶5. The central issue in this case is the validity of § NR 10.01(1)(h).5 A court may declare an administrative rule invalid “if it finds that it violates constitutional provisions or exceeds the statutory authority of the agency or was promulgated without compliance with statutory rule-making procedures.”
Standards of Review: Administrative Decisions – Certiorari – Revocation of Probation – Right to Counsel
State ex rel. Peter D. Griffin v. Smith / State ex rel. Micah E. Glenn v. Litscher, 2004 WI 36, on certification
For Griffin and Glenn: Nathaniel Cade, Jr., State Bar Pro Bono Project
Issue/Holding: A new rule of equitable tolling for untimely certiorari petitions seeking review of revocation decisions is subject to the retroactivity analysis adopted by State ex. rel.
Presentence Report — Defense-Prepared — Confidential Character of Defendant’s Statements
State v. Thomas A. Greve, 2004 WI 69, on certification
For Greve: Jeffrey J. De La Rosa
Issue: Whether State v. Crowell, 149 Wis. 2d 859, 440 N.W.2d 352 (1989), construing Wis. Stat. § 972.15 as limiting the use of a court-ordered presentence investigation report (PSI) to postconviction settings, also applies to a defendant’s sentencing memorandum.
Holding:
¶17.
Presentence Report — Enhanced Need for, under TIS
State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265
For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee App
Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶31. Likewise, we agree with the Criminal Penalties Study Committee that the judiciary must address the increased responsibility placed upon the sentencing court in light of truth-in-sentencing.
Sentence Modification — New Factor — TIS-I: Elimination of Parole
State v. James D. Crochiere, 2004 WI 78, affirming unpublished opinion
For Crochiere: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether post-sentencing events such as rehabilitation which would not be considered “new factors” supporting reduction of indeterminate sentence may be regarded as new factors under the determinate regime of TIS-I.
Holding:
¶9. Crochiere bases his argument for sentence reduction, in part, on this shift away from the executive branch’s participation due to the legislature’s elimination of parole.
Sentencing – Factors – Victim’s Good Character
State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265
For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee App
Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶63. Gallion’s next claim on appeal is that the circuit court erred in placing undue emphasis on the character of the victim. …¶64. Under Wisconsin law,
SVP – Trial: Evidence – Misconduct, § 904.04(2)
State v. Gregory J. Franklin, 2004 WI 38, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Franklin: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶16. In order to be admissible in a ch. 980 proceeding, all evidence must be relevant and that relevance must not be outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Wis. Stat. § 904.01; Wis. Stat. § 904.03;
Sentencing Review – Factors – TIS
State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265
For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee App
Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶28. With the advent of truth-in-sentencing, we recognize a greater need to articulate on the record the reasons for the particular sentence imposed. Under the old,
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Failure to Investigate Confession to Crime by Defendant’s Brother
State v. Joseph J. Guerard, 2004 WI 85, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Guerard: Joseph L. Sommers
Issue/Holding: Failure to interview or subpoena an investigator to whom the defendant’s brother had confessed was deficient performance; the basis for this failure, that counsel “thought the confessions were hearsay and that York’s reports were the work product of the State Public Defender’s office,