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.
Knight Habeas Petition: Collateral Attack on Prior No-Merit Affirmance
State ex rel. Jarrad T. Panama v. Hepp, 2008 WI App 146
For Panama: Philip J. Brehm
Issue/Holding: Panama’s collateral attack on a sentence previously affirmed by no-merit appeal may be canalized into a “Knight” habeas petition, at least where the challenge is based on a potential defect apparent in the record.
The court continues to dredge up the terrain between direct appeal and collateral attack: Knight falls on one side,
Motion to Reconsider – Basis, Generally
State v. Elizabeth A. White, 2008 WI App 96
For White: T Christopher Kelly
Issue/Holding:
¶8 To prevail on a motion for reconsideration, a party must either present newly discovered evidence or establish a manifest error of law or fact. Koepsell’s Olde Popcorn Wagons, Inc. v. Koepsell’s Festival Popcorn Wagons, Ltd., 2004 WI App 129, ¶44, 275 Wis. 2d 397,
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 of newly discovered evidence,
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 declined Strand’s offer of a long-sleeved shirt before he was brought into the courtroom for his trial.
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 a defendant’s ability to pay out of funds derived from only earnings or wages.
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 applying the original restitution order, did not distribute funds from his accounts to pay restitution in the three years prior to the entry of the amended restitution order.
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.
- As a result 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 that this language is clear and unambiguous, and that it requires us to reverse the restitution order.
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 that, along with the hotel incident,
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 has formulated the test for harmless or prejudicial error in a variety of way,” ¶42.
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.