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
Choice of (Retained Counsel), Generally
State v. Anthony L. Prineas, 2009 WI App 28, PFR filed 3/6/09 Prineas: Raymond M. Dall’osto, Kathryn A. Keppel Issue/Holding: ¶14 In United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court explained that the right to counsel derived from the Sixth Amendment includes “the right of a defendant who does not require […]
Defense of Self, § 939.48(1) – Violent Acts of Victim – Generally
State v. Jason L. McClaren, 2009 WI 60, reversing 2008 WI App 118 For McClaren: Michael C. Witt Issue/Holding: ¶21 It is well established that a defendant seeking to support a self-defense claim may attempt to “prov[e] prior specific instances of violence within [the defendant’s] knowledge at the time of the incident.” State v. Wenger, […]
Hit-and-Run – §§ 346.67(1) and 346.74(5)(b), Hit and Run Causing Personal injury – Felony Rather Than Misdemeanor
State v. Ross M. Brandt, 2009 WI App 115 For Brandt: 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. Obviously, this result is going to make life more difficult for hit-run representation, for the obvious […]
Double Jeopardy – Multiplicity – § 940.02(2)(a) and § 948.40(4)(a): Not Multiplicitous
State v. Patrick R. Patterson, 2009 WI App 161 For Patterson: David R. Karpe Issue/Holding: Based largely on State v. Jimmie Davison, 2003 WI 89 (multiple convictions for battery permissible so long as multiple batteries have been charged), the court holds that § 939.66(2) permits conviction for both §§ 940.02(2)(a) and 948.04(4)(a), ¶¶1-21. The offenses are not […]
Enhancer – Proof: Trial (on Guilt) – “Must be withheld from jury’s knowledge”
State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42 For Warbelton: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Evidence related to a penalty enhancer (such as a prior conviction in support of habitual criminality) is relevant only to sentence and “must be withheld from the jury’s knowledge,” ¶19, quoting Mulkovich v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 464, […]
Double Jeopardy – Resentencing – No Presumption of Vindictiveness
State v. Charles Lamar, 2009 WI App 133, PFR filed 9/10/09 For Lamar: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: No presumption of vindictiveness applied to resentencing by a different judge upon guilty pleas re-entered after the original trial court granted Lamar’s postconviction motion to withdraw the initial guilty pleas. ¶17 In Naydihor, our supreme court found that […]
Enhancer – § 939.62(2m)(d), Persistent Offender – “Prior” Strike
State v. Michael Scott Long, 2009 WI 36, affirming in part and reversing in part unpublished opinion For Long: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: The “3-strike” persistent repeater enhancement, § 939.62(2m)(d), requires that the two prior strikes occur before the current felony and the 1st strike’s conviction date precede the 2nd strike’s violation date. Although Long’s two prior strikes occurred before […]
Due Process – Judicial Vindictiveness – Resentencing (Following Successful Attack on Conviction), Generally
State v. Lord L. Sturdivant, 2009 WI App 5, PFR filed 1/13/09 For Sturdivant: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8 Due process “requires that vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial.” North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, […]
First Amendment (Freedom of Speech) – Applied to Identity Theft, § 943.201(2)(c): Regulation of Speech
State v. Christopher Baron, 2009 WI 58, affirming 2008 WI App 90 For Baron: Daniel P. Dunn Issue/Holding: First amendment analysis applies to an identity theft charge alleging that Baron sent emails from Fischer’s account without authorization and with intent to harm his reputation: ¶16 In order to determine if a First Amendment analysis is required, we […]
Arrest Warrants – Entry, Defendant’s Residence
State v. Terion Lamar Robinson, 2009 WI App 97 For Robinson: Beth A. Eisendrath Issue/Holding: Given the trial court finding that Robinson either lived or stayed at the apartment, the police were authorized to enter to effectuate his arrest under auspices of an arrest warrant: ¶16 In Blanco, the police, who had an arrest warrant for Blanco, […]
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.