On Point blog, page 77 of 104
Statements – Voluntariness – Police Coercion, Necessity of
State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, affirming unpublished opinion
For Hoppe: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶46. Both Connelly and Clappes support the proposition that some coercive or improper police conduct must exist in order to sustain a finding of involuntariness. However, both of these cases also recognize that police conduct does not need to be egregious or outrageous in order to be coercive.
Statements – Voluntariness – Suspect’s “Severely Debilitated” Condition Coupled with “Subtle” Police Coercion
State v. Paul D. Hoppe, 2003 WI 43, affirming unpublished opinion
For Hoppe: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Under “somewhat unique” facts, a suspect’s statements made during interviews in a hospital over a three-day period while delusional and in the throes of acute alcohol withdrawal were involuntary despite the absence of any egregious police pressure. ¶¶47-59.
As suggested, this case is highly fact-specific,
§ 974.06 – Viability of Escalona-Naranjo
State v. Anou Lo, 2003 WI 107, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals; habeas relief denied, Lo v. Endicott, 7th Cir No. 06-3948, 10/26/07
For Lo: Robert R. Henak
Amicus Briefs: Joseph N. Ehmann, Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD; Meredith J. Ross, Walter J. Dickey, UW Law School
Issue/Holding:
¶2. The petitioner, Anou Lo, asks that we overrule our decision in State v.
Motion to Reconsider Trial Ruling – Necessity to Raise “New Issue”
State v. Larry G. Edwards, 2003 WI 68, reversing unpublished summary order of court of appeals
For Edwards: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether, after the trial court dismissed a criminal case due to violation of intrastate detainer act time limits, the state’s motion for reconsideration was supported by a “new issue,” namely whether the dismissal was with prejudice.
Holding: “We conclude that the State raised a ‘new issue’
Petition for Review Deadline – Prison Mailbox Rule, Retroactivity
State ex rel Norman O. Brown v. Bradley, 2003 WI 14, on original petition for writ of habeas corpus
For Brown: Greg J. Carman
Issue/Holding:
¶1. The Petitioner, Norman O. Brown, seeks reinstatement of his petition for review which was previously dismissed as untimely filed. Brown contends that this court should apply retroactively the tolling rule for pro se prisoners that it adopted in State ex rel.
Waiver of Argument: Failure to Develop Argument on Appeal
State v. John Norman, 2003 WI 72, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Norman: Angela Kachelski
Issue/Holding: Norman’s failure on appeal to develop an argument analytically necessary to the issue he raises waives his right to have that issue reviewed. ¶64.
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Confidential Informant, Failure to Disclose § 905.10(3)(b)
State v. Phonesavanh Vanmanivong, 2003 WI 41, reversing, 2001 WI App 299
For Vanmanivong: John J. Grau
Issue/Holding: Trial court failure to order disclosure of an informant is subject to harmless error analysis. The state, as beneficiary of the error, bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the error didn’t contribute to the verdict. Here, the error was harmless: the error in the trial court’s finding that disclosure was unnecessary was procedural in nature (because it was based on unsworn rather than sworn in camera assertions and because it was procured by the judge rather than the litigants);
Resentencing — Increase in Original Sentence After Appellate Relief
State v. William J. Church (II), 2003 WI 74, reversing 2002 WI App 212, 257 Wis. 2d 442, 650 N.W.2d 873; earlier history: State v. William J. Church, 223 Wis.2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998), petition for review dismissed as improvidently granted, 2000 WI 90
For Church: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether an increase in sentence on re-sentencing violated due process,
SVP Commitments – Jurisdiction – Qualifying Conviction for Act Committed by Native American on Reservation
State v. Steven J. Burgess, 2003 WI 71, affirming 2002 WI App 264; habeas relief denied, Steven J. Burgess v. Watters, 467 F.3d 676 (7th Cir 2006)
For Burgess: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether ch. 980 jurisdiction attaches to Native Americans who: are members of a tribe, residents of the tribe’s reservation, and commit the acts involved in the qualifying conviction on the reservation.
SVP – Pretrial – Petition Filed by DA without Prior DOC Request or DOJ Action
State v. Harris D. Byers, 2003 WI 86, reversing unpublished opinion of court of appeals
For Byers: Jack E. Schairer & Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶26. A review of the placement of the provisions, together with the legislative history, reflects an intent to create a step-by-step process that must be followed before a district attorney has authority to file a petition.