On Point

 court of appeals decision; for Lesik: Anthony Cotton

Overbreadth challenge to 948.02, sexual assault of a child
Sexual assault (intercourse) of a child, § 948.02, isn’t unconstitutionally overbroad, against a theory that it criminalizes acts undertaken for “proper medical purpose.” Although the statute is silent with respect to medical conduct, potential overbreadth may be cured through judicial construction and the court therefore “conclude(s) here that ‘sexual intercourse’ as used in the sexual assault of a child statute does not include ‘bona fide medical,

court of appeals decision, pro se

Detainer, definition, nationwide arrest warrant

Issue/Holding: Faxing to the defendant’s prison an arrest warrant and complaint, followed by verbal confirmation of the validity of same, satisfied the § 976.05 definition of “detainer,” notwithstanding the issuing authority’s express disavowal to the prison of intent to lodge a detainer.

 ¶11   We fail to see how the foregoing could possibly not demonstrate “notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence,

court of appeals decision; for Phillips: Michael J. Backes; case activity

Warrantless Entry – Exigent Circumstances 

¶8        There are four exigent circumstances that may justify a warrantless search: “(1) an arrest made in ‘hot pursuit,’ (2) a threat to safety of a suspect or others, (3) a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and (4) a likelihood that the suspect will flee.” State v.

Sentence modification based on new factor; Earned Release Program and Challenge Incarceration Program

State v. Jeremy D. Schladweiler, 2008AP3119-CR, Dist II, 11/11/09

Pro se

 Issue/Holding:

¶7        Sentence modification involves a two-step process. State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989). First, a defendant must show the existence of a new factor thought to justify the motion to modify sentence.

Consecutive sentences following partial plea withdrawal and reconviction

Click here for court of appeals decision, petition for review granted 10/27/10

Defense counsel: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: After sentencing on 3 separate counts, the trial court granted Lamar’s motion to withdraw his guilty pleas to 2 of the counts. He continued to serve the sentence on the unchallenged count. Upon subsequent reconviction on the 2 counts,

Order for DNA sample and surcharge

Click here for certification order

For Mathis: Donna Odrzywolski

We [District IV] certify this appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.61 (2007-08), to resolve a conflict among the districts of the court of appeals that has arisen as a result of our decision in State v. Cherry, 2008 WI App 80, ¶¶8-9, 312 Wis.

Waiver of Escalona argument; claim of self-defense where crime includes “utter disregard of life” element

Click here for court of appeals decision, PFR filed 8/3/09

(opinion originally issued 4/23, withdrawn 5/12, reissued 5/21, withdrawn 6/12, reissued 7/2. Groundhog Day? Not quite: the withdrawn opinions found that trial counsel was ineffective for not seeking a lesser included instruction to reckless injury, but the new opinion rejects that conclusion)

Pro se

Issue/Holding: State failure to argue,

Plain error rule; DA’s “vouching” during closing argument

Click here for court of appeals decision

Defense counsel: Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue/Holding:  

¶12      “Plain error” means a clear or obvious error, one that likely deprived the defendant of a basic constitutional right. State v. Frank, 2002 WI App 31, ¶25, 250 Wis. 2d 95, 640 N.W.2d 198 (Ct. App.

Hit and run causing injury is felony

Click here for court of appeals decision 

Defense counsel: John M. Yackel

 Issue/Holding: Although it carries a maximum penalty of 9 months’ imprisonment, hit-and-run causing injury less than serious bodily harm, §§ 346.67(1) and 346.74(5)(b), is a felony. 

Analysis:  Obviously, this result is going to make life more difficult for hit-run representation, for the obvious reason: it’s one thing to advise your client to plead out to a misdemeanor,

Warrantless entry of residence; protective sweep

Click here for court of appeals decision 

Defense counsel: Robert E. Haney

 Issue/Holding: Warrantless entry of residence is supported when the State demonstrates both probable cause and exigent circumstances, ¶7. Exigent circumstances include: (1) hot pursuit of suspect; (2) threat to someone’s safety; (3) risk of evidence destruction; and (4) likelihood suspect will flee, ¶9.

Analysis:  The court goes on to collapse the 2nd and 3rd categories of exigencies,