On Point: B. Opinions

State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶37      For Campbell to be convicted of interfering with custody of Cody, the State had to prove five elements: (1) Cody was younger than 18 years; (2) Denise had legal custody of Cody under a court order in an action for divorce; (3) Campbell took Cody from Denise and withheld him from Denise without her consent for more than 12 hours past the time allowed by the custody order;

State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: To attack a custody order as void, in defense against interference with child custody, § 948.31, “the family court would have had to lack subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction, or Campbell would have had to receive inadequate notice of the divorce proceedings,” ¶46.

Campbell argued that the custody order was procured by fraud,

State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶39      After sentencing, in cases that involve an alleged deficiency in the plea colloquy, an attempt to withdraw a guilty plea proceeds as follows. The defendant must file a postconviction motion under Wis. Stat. § 809.30 or other appropriate statute. The motion must (1) make a prima facie showing of a violation of Wis. 

State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2006 WI App 28, overruled on other grounds, 2007 WI 96
For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶31      Our conclusion that Jenkins had a fair and just reason for plea withdrawal does not end our inquiry.  We must consider whether the State would be substantially prejudiced by the plea withdrawal. See id.

State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶74      The Bangert and Nelson/Bentley motions, however, are applicable to different factual circumstances. [47] A defendant invokes Bangert when the plea colloquy is defective; a defendant invokes Nelson/Bentley when the defendant alleges that some factor extrinsic to the plea colloquy,

State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: On the particular facts (illiterate defendant, no written questionnaire, perfunctory colloquy) the defendant was entitled to a Bangert hearing on whether the understood the nature of the rights waived by his guilty plea.

With respect to waiver of right to jury trial,

State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order

For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The defendant demonstrated a prima facie showing that his guilty plea was inadequate, where he was illiterate (such that a plea questionnaire wasn’t even prepared) and the trial court’s colloquy was superficial, ¶¶53-58.

The facts are sufficiently extreme that recurrence is highly unlikely and they therefore won’t be detailed in this summary;

State v. Vanessa Brockdorf, 2006 WI 76, affirming unpublished decision
For Brockdorf: Martin E. Kohler, Brian Kinstler

Issue/Holding: ¶39 n. 6:

After oral argument and pursuant to an order dated October 14, 2005, the parties submitted to the court the relevant provisions of the MPD Policies and Procedures Manual. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 902.01, in our discretion,

State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision
For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman

Issue/Holding: Trial court’s refusal to admit expert testimony on factors influencing witness’s ability to identify a stranger during a lineup procedure, in particular the distorting effect of a simultaneous as opposed to sequential procedure, was not an erroneous exercise of discretion:

¶15     In 2002,

State v. Forest S. Shomberg, 2006 WI 9, affirming unpublished decision
For Shomberg: Charles W. Giesen; Morris D. Berman

Issue/Holding:

¶39 Finally, we determine that the circuit court did not erroneously exercise its discretion in refusing to admit testimony regarding Shomberg’s offer to take a polygraph examination. … However, such an offer is only “relevant to the state of mind of a person making the offer as ‘long as the person making the offer believes that the test or analysis is possible,