On Point

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 […]

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, […]

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 […]

State v. Michael Scott Long, 2009 WI 36, affirming in part and reversing in part unpublished opinion For Long: Joseph L. Sommers Issue/Holding: The “3-strike” persistent repeater enhancement, § 939.62(2m)(d), requires that the two prior strikes occur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 […]

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, […]

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 […]

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, […]

State v. Jeremy D. Schladweiler, 2009 WI App 177 Pro se Issue/Holding: ¶9        Commonly referred to as “boot camp,” the CIP is governed by Wis. Stat. § 302.045, which provides that “the [DOC] shall provide a challenge incarceration program for inmates selected to participate” after meeting the eligibility requirements for the program. Sec. 302.045(1). … ¶10      […]

State v. Michael A. Sveum, 2009 WI App 81, affirmed on other grounds, 2010 WI 92 For Sveum: Robert J. Kaiser, Jr. Issue/Holding: A search warrant for seizure of the sorts of items Sveum used or kept in connection with a 1996 stalking conviction established probable cause he was keeping such items in 2003: ¶35      The […]

State v. Jaime Romero, 2009 WI 32, reversing unpublished opinion For Romero: Thomas E. Hayes Issue/Holding: Search warrant affidavit, based in part on incriminatory statements of “unwitting” informant (“Mr. X”), established probable cause: ¶29      In the instant case a confidential informant told a law enforcement officer what someone else had told him.  In such a case, the veracity […]