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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Sentencing – Review – Harsh and Excessive – Sexual Assault
State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09 For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: Initial confinement totaling 36, and supervision of 17, years on sexual assault-related convictions wasn’t harsh and excessive: ¶48 Berggren’s sentence was not shocking, nor does it violate the judgment of reasonable people concerning what is right and proper under […]
Sentencing – Review – Harsh and Excessive – Sexual Assault
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28 For Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’Osto, Kathryn A. Keppel Issue/Holding: Prineas was convicted on 2 counts of 2nd-degree sexual assault, and acquitted on another 4; the PSI recommended 6-8 years, but he was sentenced to 10 IC, 10 ES and a concurrent 30-year term of probation; though a […]
Writs – Certiorari – Inmate Complaint – “Misdirected” Writ, Lack of Jurisdiction
State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49 Pro se Issue/Holding: Writ of certiorari “misdirected” to wrong respondent (in this instance, review of inmate complaint, improperly naming as respondent institution warden rather than DOC Secretary or designee) must be dismissed: ¶10 We begin by observing that certiorari “is available only for […]
Wtits – Certiorari – Inmate Complaint – Limitation on Discovery
State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Smith, 2009 WI App 49 Pro se Issue/Holding: Inmate may not utilize discovery to bypass security-based restrictions on access to banned material such as pornography: ¶16 Inmates must not be allowed to evade security restrictions by simply filing suit or petitioning for writ of certiorari and obtaining prohibited […]
Sentence – Consecutive Terms – Exercise of Discretion, Generally
State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09 For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: The sentencing court need not state separately why it chooses consecutive rather than concurrent terms; rather, this determination is made by considering the same factors as inform sentence length, ¶¶45-46.
Sentence – Review – Exercise of Discretion, Generally
State v. Todd W. Berggren, 2009 WI App 82, PFR filed 6/24/09 For Berggren: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: Sentence was based on proper exercise of discretion, including gravity of offense and defendant’s character and “long-term treatment needs,” ¶¶38-44.
Sentencing Review – Factors – Proof: Prior Acquittal
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28 For Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel Issue/Holding: The sentencing court properly considered a count for which Prineas was acquitted, as well as uncharged, “sexually inappropriate behavior,” ¶28, citing State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7.
Sentencing Review – Factors – Seriousness of Offense – Weight Left to Trial Court
State v. Corey E. Young, 2009 WI App 22, PFR filed 1/7/09 For Young: Jeffrey W. Jensen Issue/Holding: The trial court, in sentencing for first-degree intentional homicide, sufficiently explained why it was assigning extended supervision eligibility of 50 years’ confinement (rather than the 40 recommended by the State). Weight given each sentencing factor is committed to the […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Lack of Familiarity with Vienna Convention on Consular Relations
Johnbull K. Osagiede v. USA, 543 F.3d 399 (7th Cir 2009) Issue/Holding: Counsel’s ignorance of rights available, under VCCR Art. 36, to her Nigerian national client was deficient: Osagiede’s claim is a common one in Sixth Amendment cases. In essence, Osagiede argues that his lawyer should have been aware of his legal rights under Article 36 and […]
Substitution of (Retained Counsel), Contingent on Continuance
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, PFR filed 3/6/09 Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel Issue/Holding: Trial court refusal to allow Prineas to substitute one retained counsel for another absent “an extraordinary reason,” where substitution would necessitate continuance of the scheduled trial over objection of the complainant and her family, upheld […]
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.