Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
TPR – Plea-Withdrawal
Dane Co. DHS v. Brittany W., No. 2009AP2778, District IV, 7/8/10
court of appeals decision (1-judge; not fo publication); for Brittany W.: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison Appellate
The court rejects Brittany’s claim she didn’t understand the consequence of her no-contest plea (that she would be deemed unfit, and that disposition would turn on the child’s best interests), given the trial judge’s finding that the denial of such knowledge wasn’t credible,
Evidence – Extraneous Misconduct; Effective Assistance
State v. Raymond A. Habersat, No. 2009AP976-CR, District I, 7/7/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Habersat: Angela Conrad Kachelski; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Evidence – Extraneous Misconduct
On Habersat’s trial for first-degree sexual assault of a child, admission of evidence of his 1991 sexual assault of a child to establish motive and intent was a proper exercise of discretion,
Sentencing – Accurate Information; New Factor
State v. Michael J. Grabowski, No. 2009AP2118-CR, District I, 7/7/10
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Grabowski: Jamie F. Wiemer; BiC; Resp.; Reply
Sentencing – Accurate Information
¶5 Grabowski argues that the circuit court sentenced him based on inaccurate information. A defendant claiming that a sentencing court relied on inaccurate information must show that: (1) the information was inaccurate;
Confrontation – Limits on Cross-Examination
State v. Olu A. Rhodes, No. 2009AP25, District I, 7/7/10; reversed, 2011 WI 73
court of appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication), reversed, 2011 WI 73; for Rhodes: John J. Grau; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶10 A defendant’s “right to confront and to cross-examine is not absolute[,]” however, and “‘trial judges retain wide latitude … to impose reasonable limits.’” Id.
Rape-Shield – Prior Untruthful Allegation
State v. Jim H. Ringer, 2010 WI 69, reversing unpublished opinion; for Ringer: Thomas O. Mulligan; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶3 We conclude that the circuit court erroneously exercised its discretion when it granted Ringer’s motion in limine, allowing him to introduce at trial evidence that the child complainant made prior allegedly untruthful allegations of sexual assault against her biological father.
Guilty Plea – Knowledge of Maximum Penalty
State v. Travis Vondell Cross, 2010 WI 70, on bypass; for Cross: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply; Cross Supp.; AG Supp.
¶4 We hold that where a defendant is told that he faces a maximum possible sentence that is higher, but not substantially higher, than that authorized by law,
Counsel – Substitution – Deaf Defendant
State v. Dwight Glen Jones, 2010 WI 72, affirming unpublished opinion; for Jones: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶43 The issues presented are first, whether Jones is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that the circuit court wrongly denied his request for substitution of counsel, and second, whether he is entitled to a new trial on the grounds that such a denial violates rights guaranteed by the Wisconsin Constitution and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Guilty Pleas: Colloquy – Deportation
State v. Hou Erik Vang, 2010 WI App 118; for Vang: John L. Sesini; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶1 Hou Vang appeals an order denying his motion to withdraw his no contest pleas to second-degree sexual assault of a child and felony bail jumping. Vang argues WIS. STAT. §§ 971.08(1)(c), (2)[1] entitle him to withdraw his pleas because, although the circuit court provided the statutory deportation warning at his arraignment,
NGI – “Serious Property Damage”
State v. Wendy A. Brown, 2010 WI App 113; for Brown: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply
The significant risk of “serious property damage” underlying an NGI institutionalization-commitment, § 971.17(3)(a), doesn’t require physical damage to property; loss of money or goods — from identity theft in this instance — suffices:
¶13 The above definitions of property and damage are much broader than that which would be required to support Brown’s limited interpretation of property damage.
Counsel – Waiver – Self-Representation
State v. Rashaad A. Imani, 2010 WI 66, reversing 2009 WI App 98;habeas relief granted 6/22/16; for Imani: Basil M. Loeb; BiC; Resp.; Reply
¶3 We conclude that the circuit court properly denied Imani’s motion to represent himself. First, we determine that Imani did not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waive the right to counsel. The circuit court engaged Imani in two of the four lines of inquiry prescribed in Klessig and properly determined that Imani (1) did not make a deliberate choice to proceed without counsel,
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.