On Point blog, page 2 of 6
Costs for Standby Counsel
State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶72 Wisconsin Stat. § 973.06 permits the court to impose a lengthy list of costs upon an unsuccessful defendant. At sentencing, the court may require a probationer to reimburse the county or the state, as applicable, “for any costs for legal representation . . . for the defense of the case.”
Stop – Basis – Already-Parked Car (Dicta)
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
(Apparent Dicta): Though a “close question,” in that “(w)hen a marked squad car pulls up behind a car, activates emergency flashers, and points a spotlight at the car, it certainly presents indicia of police authority,” ¶65, the court is “reluctant to conclude that the positioning of the officer’s car,
Stop – Basis – Test: Failure to Yield to Authority / Hodari D.
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶26 Under Hodari D. and Kelsey, an uncomplied-with show of authority cannot constitute a seizure. …
…
¶37 Mendenhall is the appropriate test for situations where the question is whether a person submitted to a police show of authority because,
Exposing Minors to Harmful Materials, § 948.11(2) — Sufficiency of Evidence — Failure to Expose Those Alleged Materials to Jury
State v. Tyrone Booker, 2006 WI 79, reversing 2005 WI App 182
For Booker: Jeffrey W. Jensen
Issue: Whether conviction under § 948.11, exposing child to harmful materials, can be sustained where the jury heard the children’s and a detective’s descriptions of the videotape but did not themselves view it.
Holding:
¶25 When we view the evidence in this case most favorably to the State,
(State) Habeas Procedure, Generally
State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remanding summary order of court of appeals, reconsideration denied, 2006 WI 121
For Coleman: Brian Kinstler
Issue/Holding:
¶18 A petition for writ of habeas corpus commences a civil proceeding wherein the petitioner claims an illegal denial of his or her liberty. State ex rel. Zdanczewicz v.
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Maximum Punishment: Possible Consecutive Sentences
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: A plea colloquy is not required to caution the defendant that punishment for each of multiple charges could be imposed consecutively, ¶78.
§ 941.23, CCW – As-Applied Constitutionality, in Light of Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25 – Tavern Owner, Gun in Car Console
State v. Scott K. Fisher, 2006 WI 44, on certification
For Fisher: Paul B. Millis
Issue: Whether the right to bear arms provision of Wis. Const. Art. I, § 25 countenances prosecution for carrying a concealed weapon in a car’s console by a tavern owner who asserted its necessity for security purposes in that he routinely transported large amounts of cash.
Holding:
¶5 … (W)e conclude that § 941.23 is constitutional as applied to Fisher because his interest in exercising his right to keep and bear arms for purposes of security by carrying a concealed weapon in his vehicle does not substantially outweigh the state’s interest in enforcing § 941.23.…
¶18 … Defendants have the burden of proof.
Voluntariness of Plea to Grounds for Termination, Procedure for Challenging, Confusion of Parent
Kenosha Co. DHS v. Jodi W. 2006 WI 93, reversing summary order
Issue/Holding: The circuit court must undertake a colloquy with the parent tracking § 48.422(7); the parent must know the rights being waived; and on a challenge to the plea the parent must make a prima facie showing that the colloquy was defective and also allege a lack of understanding of the omitted information, ¶¶25-26,
Presentence Report — Sentencing Factor, pre-Gallion – Generally
State v. Germaine M. Taylor, 2006 WI 22, affirming unpublished summary order
For Taylor: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶28 In terms of the length of his sentence, Taylor argues that there appeared to be no “starting point” for the court of some very low period of confinement, or even the period of confinement recommended by the PSI writer. We cannot agree.
Sentence Modification — Procedure — Necessity of Motion
State v. Roger S. Walker, 2006 WI 82, affirming as modified summary order
For Walker: James Rebholz
Issue/Holding: In order to obtain review, a defendant must file a postconviction motion to modify sentence, even if the event was a re-sentencing which came to the same result as originally imposed.
¶37 In the hope of clarifying appellate procedure, we conclude that when a defendant seeks modification of the sentence imposed at resentencing,