On Point

State v. Daniel Arends, 2008 WI App 184, PFR granted 2/10/09
For Arends: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue/Holding:

¶24      In his petition, Arends alleged that his condition had changed such that he no longer met the definition of a sexually violent person because (1) “the passage of time demonstrated that anti-social behavior expected under an earlier diagnosis did not occur,” (2) a lower PCL -R score showed a change in Arends’ condition,

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: A parolee’s statement made under grant of immunity (per State v. Evans, 77 Wis. 2d 225, 252 N.W.2d 664 (1977)), was compelled (therefore involuntary) and inadmissible at a ch.

State v. Lawrence Payette, 2008 WI App 106, PFR filed 6/30/08
For Payette: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro

Issue: Whether threats made to the victims, while the prosecution was pending, to try to dissuade them from testifying were relevant to sentence despite absence of evidence linking threats to the defendant himself.

Holding:

¶41      The court process is a predictable consequence of conduct which results in a criminal charge.

State v. Stephen C. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, PFR filed 4/16/08
For Sherman: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: The sentencing court’s observations to the effect that the defendant was “a sick man” didn’t amount to “unsupported findings about his mental health:

¶14      At Sherman’s postconviction hearing, the court indicated that its comments did not reflect medical diagnoses, but were instead common sense observations based upon facts in the record.

State v. Stephen C. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, PFR filed 4/16/08
For Sherman: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding:

¶15      Sherman claims the only evidence about his mental health came from his expert, Dr. Gerald Wellens. Sherman claims the court failed to consider his expert’s opinion. However, at sentencing, the court expressly considered Wellens’ opinion. The court noted that Wellens only examined Sherman for a short period of time and that his perceptions of Sherman were plainly outweighed by contradictory testimony of people who were more familiar with Sherman. 

State v. Stephen C. Sherman, 2008 WI App 57, PFR filed 4/16/08
For Sherman: John J. Grau

Issue/Holding: Sentencing failure to consider applicable guidelines, § 973.017(2)(a), was harmless error, at least where the controlling sentence was untainted by the error:

¶9        We conclude that the circuit court’s failure to consider the sentencing guidelines for the two Wis. Stat. § 948.02(2) counts was harmless error.

Go: here.

Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353 (2008) fundamentally altered the confrontation-forfeiture doctrine: There, the Court held in effect that the forfeiture doctrine “applie(s) only when the defendant engaged in conduct designed to prevent the witness from testifying,” although the Court also allowed that “(e)arlier abuse, or threats of abuse, intended to dissuade the victim from resorting to outside help would be highly relevant to this inquiry,

State v. Craig A. Swope, 2008 WI App 175
For Swope: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue: Whether an FBI agent’s expert opinion, that the simultaneous deaths of an elderly couple were the result of homicide rather than natural causes, was improperly based on hearsay, namely the opinions of two non-testifying experts who thought the likelihood of natural causes so remote as to be impossible.

Holding:

¶35      In State v.

State v. Todd E. Peterson, 2008 WI App 140
For Peterson: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: The trial court erroneously disqualified retained postconviction counsel from litigating an ineffective-assistance claim against his former law partner, the trial attorney:

¶21      Our review of the transcripts reveals little about what the circuit court feared would happen at the Machner hearing; specifically, what risk Petit’s representation posed to Peterson or to the integrity of the judicial system.

State v. Paul Dwayne Westmoreland, 2008 WI App 15, PFR filed 1/17/08
For Westmoreland: Joseph E. Redding

Issue: Whether counsel’s strategic decision to argue inconsistent theories during closing argument (the defendant wasn’t involved in the shooting, but if the jury found he was then they should find guilt only on a lesser offense) was deficient.

Holding:

¶20      We start with the proposition that strategic decisions by a lawyer are virtually invulnerable to second-guessing.