On Point

State v. Leonard J. Quintana, 2008 WI 33, affirming 2007 WI App 29
For Quintana: James B. Connell, Robyn J. DeVos, William R. Kerner

Issue/Holding:

¶70      To constitute mayhem, the State must show that the defendant had (1) the specific intent to disable or disfigure; (2) by cutting or mutilating the tongue, eye, ear, nose, lip, limb, or other bodily member;

State v. Bruce Duncan MacArthur, 2008 WI 72, on Certification
For MacArthur: Alex Flynn
Amicus: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: Alleged violations, between 1965 and 1972, of since-repealed ch. 944 sexual assault statutes come within the statute of limitations provision extant during that time frame.

There is, of course, a whole lot more to it than that, at least in terms of getting to that point,

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se

Issue/Holding: Defendant did not satisfy his burden of proving indigency, for purposes of invoking inherent judicial authority to appoint counsel, where he failed to submit information regarding attempts to retain counsel as well as information relative to rental property, ¶18.

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶27      We emphasize that the procedures set forth in Dean by this court suggest that the inherent power of the circuit court shall be exercised to cover situations where a defendant cooperated with the SPD’s financial analysis, was found not to be indigent under the legislative criteria, but based on the individual circumstances of the case,

State v. Alvernest Floyd Kennedy, 2008 WI App 186
Pro se

Issue/Holding1:

¶11      Kennedy argues that the trial court failed to properly review the SPD’s determination that he did not qualify for the appointment of counsel. In reviewing this issue, the trial court’s findings of fact will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous. See id, 163 Wis.  2d at 511.

State v. Ramon Lopez Arias, 2008 WI 84, on Certification
For Arias: Lora B. Cerone, SPD, Madison

Issue/Holding:

¶20      Historically, we have interpreted Article I, Section 11 of the Wisconsin Constitution in accord with the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. See, e.g., State v. Malone, 2004 WI 108, ¶15, 274 Wis. 2d 540,

State v. Todd Lee Kramer, 2009 WI 14, affirming 2008 WI App 62
For Kramer: Stephen J. Eisenberg, Marsha M. Lysen

Issue/Holding:

¶18      Historically, we generally have interpreted Article I, Section 11 to provide the same constitutional guarantees as the Supreme Court has accorded through its interpretation of the Fourth Amendment. Arias, 311 Wis.  

State v. Ronald D. Luttrell, 2008 WI App 93
For Luttrell: Steven Prifogle, SPD, Milwaukee Trial

Issue: Whether a ch. 980 SVP respondent is entitled to § 971.14 competency evaluation.

Holding:

¶8        It is true, of course, that both Wis. Stat. § 971.13 and Wis. Stat. § 971.14 once applied to Wis. Stat. ch. 980 commitments, see Smith,

State v. Terry L. Kletzien, Jr., 2008 WI App 182
For Kletzien: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding:

¶8        A person convicted of a crime has a due process right to postconviction discovery if “the desired evidence is relevant to an issue of consequence.” State v. Ziebart, 2003 WI App 258, ¶32, 268 Wis.  2d 468, 673 N.W.2d 369. Whether to grant a motion requesting postconviction discovery is committed to the trial court’s discretion.

Portage Daily Register v. Columbia Co. Sh. Dept., 2008 WI App 30

Issue/Holding:

¶8        We will generally not consider issues that are moot on appeal. See Hernandez v. Allen, 2005 WI App 247, ¶10, 288 Wis. 2d 111, 707 N.W.2d 557. However, the present appeal is not moot because our ruling will have the practical effect of determining the Register’s right to recover damages and fees under Wis.