On Point blog, page 3 of 3
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity: theft and concealment, §§ 943.20(1)(a) & (3)(d)5
State v. Jason J. Trawitzki, 2001 WI 77, 244 Wis. 2d 523, 628 N.W.2d 801, affirming State v. Trawitzki, 2000 WI App 205, 238 Wis. 2d 795, 618 N.W.2d 884
For Trawitzki: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether multiple charges of theft of firearms taken at the same time, and multiple charges of concealing those firearms, violated double jeopardy.
Holding: Multiplicity is a two-part test: determine whether the offenses are identical in both law and fact;
Community Caretaker — Juvenile in High-crime Area
State v. Kelsey C.R., 2001 WI 54
For Kelsey C. R.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, if a seizure did occur when the police told a potentially vulnerable juvenile girl in a high crime area to “stay put,” it was justified under the community caretaker doctrine.
Holding: (Lead, three-vote opinion:) Given the “strong public interest in locating runaway children and juveniles,” along with the perception that “(a) juvenile [such as Kelsey],
First Amendment – Speech – Criminalized Threat
State v. Douglas D., 2001 WI 47, 243 Wis. 2d 204, 626 N.W.2d 725, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For Douglas D.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether purely written speech may be punished as disorderly conduct, § 947.01, even where no disturbance results.
Holding: The disorderly conduct statute, applied to speech alone, is neither overbroad nor “underbroad” (i.e., discriminating on the basis of content),
Guilty Pleas – Factual Basis — Use of Complaint
State v. Tyren E. Black, 2001 WI 31, 242 Wis. 2d 126, 624 N.W.2d 363, reversing unpublished court of appeals decision
For Black: Michael S. Holzman
Issue: Whether the trial court properly found a factual basis for the guilty plea, by relying solely on the criminal complaint, where extraneous information put one of the elements in doubt.
Holding:
¶14. In essence, Black urges us to overturn this rule and find that a circuit court cannot find a factual basis for a plea in the complaint alone.
Defenses – “Statutory Double Jeopardy” – Drug Offenses – § 961.45
State v. Colleen E. Hansen, 2001 WI 53, 243 Wis. 2d 328, 626 N.W.2d 195, on certification
For Hansen: Pamela Pepper
Issue: “¶8 … ‘Does Wis. Stat. § 961.45 bar prosecution for the state crime of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, where a defendant previously has been convicted, based on the same conduct, for the federal crime of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute? Stated differently,
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.
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,
Warrants – No-Knock Authorization – Sufficiency of Showing of Danger
State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2000 WI App 73, 234 Wis. 2d 396, 610 N.W.2d 208, affirmed in pertinent part, but reversed on other grounds, 2001 WI 98, ¶¶21-26
For Eason (in SCt): Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether the no-knock warrant was supported by reasonable suspicion that announcing police presence would create danger.
Holding: The showing wasn’t sufficient to abrogate announcement: though the warrant noted the occupants’
Reasonable Suspicion – Frisk – drug investigation – auto
State v. Roosevelt Williams, 2001 WI 21, on remand from U.S. S.Ct., 529 U.S. 1050 (2000), previously reported: State v. Roosevelt Williams, 225 Wis. 2d 159, 591 N.W.2d 823 (1999); State v. Williams, 214 Wis. 2d 412, 570 N.W.2d 892 (Ct. App. 1997).For Williams: Melinda Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate.
Issue: Whether the police had reasonable suspiciion to conduct a “protective search”