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.
Emergency Detention, § 51.15(10) – Untimely Probable Cause Hearing, Lost Competency of Court to Proceed
Dane County v. Stevenson L.J., 2009 WI App 84
For Stevenson L.J.: Ruth N. Westmont
Issue/Holding: Where Stevenson L.J. was detained on an “emergency statement” in one county (Brown), then transferred to another (Dane) before a probable cause hearing, a new emergency statement in Dane County did not establish a new 72-hour time limit for a probable cause hearing; competency over the proceeding was therefore lost:
¶12 Under the County’s argument,
SVP Commitments – Evidence – References to Post-Commitment Re-Evaluations
State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175
For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: “Infrequent references to annual re-evaluation” were not “sufficiently egregious to diminish the jury’s sense of responsibility for its verdict,” ¶¶20-24.
SVP Commitments – Evidence – References to Psychopathic Treatment Program
State v. Carl Kaminski, 2009 WI App 175
For Kaminski: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding: Testimony by a state’s expert to the effect that the only treatment program for psychopaths is at Sand Ridge did not require a new trial under the theory that it implicitly suggested commitment would be in the community’s and respondent’s best interest, ¶¶25-27 (court rejecting analogy to TPR procedure):
¶27 Wisconsin Stat.
Sentence Modification – New Factor – DOC Determination of Ineligibility for Boot Camp (CIP)
State v. Jeremy D. Schladweiler, 2009 WI App 177
Pro se
Issue/Holding: DOC determination that an inmate isn’t eligible for CIP doesn’t constitute a new factor, notwithstanding the sentencing court’s determination that he is eligible.
¶11 Here, the trial court determined that Schladweiler was eligible for the CIP. … The sentencing court expressly indicated that participation in the CIP is a possibility to be ultimately determined by the department,
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 the circumstances. As the State points out,
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 first-time offender, the disposition is upheld against a claim of harsh and excessive sentence,
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 the purpose of reviewing a final determination.” Id.
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 materials through discovery. Due process does not mean that a prisoner has an absolute right to everything relevant to his or her case.
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.
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.