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
No Waiver Bar, Collateral Attack Based on Newly Discovered Evidence
State v. Audrey A. Edmunds , 2008 WI App 33; prior history: State v. Edmunds, 229 Wis. 2d 67, 598 N.W.2d 290 (Ct. App. 1999), habeas relief denied, Edmunds v. Deppisch, 313 F.3d 997 (7th Cir. 2002) For Edmunds: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: Presentation of expert testimony to establish, under a theory […]
Waiver – Taser Device Worn by Defendant, Failure to Raise Objection
State v. Kevin M. Champlain, 2008 WI App 5, (AG’s) PFR filed 1/4/08 For Champlain: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶15 The State first argues that Champlain has waived the armband issue. The State contends that Champlain cannot not be heard to complain about the jury seeing the armband device when he himself […]
Restitution – Limitations – “Gifted Funds” in Prisoner’s Account as Source
State v. Jeremy T. Greene, 2008 WI App 100, PFR filed 7/14/08 For Greene: Kristen D. Schipper Issue: Whether the sentencing court may order that DOC distribute “gifted” (as opposed to wage-based) funds in a prisoner’s account to satisfy a restitution obligation. Holding: ¶12 We observe that Wis. Stat. § 973.20 does not limit the consideration of […]
Restitution – Limitations – Time Limit / Double Jeopardy
State v. Jeremy T. Greene, 2008 WI App 100, PFR filed 7/14/08 For Greene: Kristen D. Schipper Issue/Holding: Restitution order amendment, directing DOC to disburse funds from the prisoner’s account, did not violate double jeopardy although the amendment occurred three years after the original order: ¶16 Greene’s double jeopardy argument focuses on the fact that DOC, in […]
Restitution – “Victim”: Obligor of Bail Forfeited by Defendant’s Violation of Bond Condition
State v. William Agosto, 2008 WI App 149, PFR filed 10/21/08 For Agosto: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The defendant’s mother, who posted subsequently-forfeited cash bail, is a “victim” for restitution purposes: ¶8 … Agosto committed the “crime” of bail-jumping. He pled guilty and the circuit court entered a judgment convicting him of that crime. […]
Restitution — Law Enforcement Officer Not “Victim,” § 973.20(1r) re: Injuries Suffered While Apprehending Defendant
State v. Anthony Houston Lee, 2008 WI App 185 For Lee: Carl W. Chessir Issue/Holding: ¶11 As noted, Wis. Stat. § 973.20 authorizes a trial court to order restitution to victims of a “[c]rime considered at sentencing,” which includes “any crime for which the defendant was convicted and any read-in crime.” Sec. 973.20(1g)(a) & (1r). We conclude […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error: SVP Trial
State v. Charles W. Mark, 2008 WI App 44; on appeal following remand in State v. Mark, 2006 WI 78, 292 Wis. 2d 1, 718 N.W.2d 90 For Mark: Glenn L. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶57 In summary, while the termination from the community treatment program and the rule violation were presented as conduct […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error: General Test
State v. Ronell E. Harris, 2008 WI 15, affirming unpublished decision For Harris: Ralph J. Sczygelskis Issue/Holding: Various discovery and evidentiary violations amounted to harmless error, whether taken singly (¶¶41-59, ¶87-90) or cumulatively (¶¶109-113).Harmless error discussions are largely fact-specific, and this case is no exception. But it is noteworthy for its recognition that the “court […]
NGI Commitments – Standard of Review: Commitment for Institutional Care, § 971.17(3)(a)
State v. Paul A. Wilinski, 2008 WI App 170 For Wilinski: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶11 Wisconsin courts have not yet articulated the standard for reviewing a circuit court’s order for commitment under Wis. Stat. § 971.17(3)(a). The State proposes that courts should review such orders under a sufficiency of the evidence standard. […]
NGI Commitments – Commitment for Institutional Care, § 971.17(3)(a) – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Paul A. Wilinski, 2008 WI App 170 For Wilinski: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: NGI commitment to institutional care supported by the evidence, in that The nature of the offense itself (violent assault coupled with threat to kill) supported a finding of significant risk of harm if Wilinski were released (¶13); Wilinski […]
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.