On Point

State v. Michelle R. Popenhagen, 2008 WI 54, reversing 2007 WI App 16
For Popenhagen: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether statements made when confronted with documents produced in violation of § 968.135 subpoena procedure are suppressible.

Holding:

¶81 The defendant’s motion to suppress the incriminating statements in the present case is substantially similar in nature to a motion to quash the subpoena.

State ex rel. Adrian T. Hipp v. Murray, 2007 WI App 202, affirmed, 2008 WI 67, ¶48 n. 7 (reconsideration denied, 2008 WI 118)
Pro se

Issue/Holding: ¶13 n. 4:

We are disturbed by Reddin’s presumption to give, and Judge Murray’s acquiescence to receive, Reddin’s ex parte advice about the scope of Hipp’s ability to have issued subpoenas for the production of his witnesses at the John Doe hearing,

State v. Eugene D. Rhodes, 2008 WI App 32, PFR filed 1/15/08
For Rhodes: Joseph E. Redding

Issue/Holding: Counsel’s “forceful” advice that defendant enter a guilty plea wasn’t in and of itself a “fair and just” reason sufficient to require pre-sentencing grant of a motion to withdraw the plea:

¶11      Rhodes proffers his attorney’s “forceful advice” as the coercion present here. We reject such a contention.

State v. Christopher S. Hoppe, 2008 WI App 89
For Hoppe: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a plea colloquy that merely established that the defendant was “satisfied” he understood “everything in the questionnaire and waiver of rights and the elements of the charges” sufficed under State v. Bangert, 131 Wis.  2d 246, 389 N.W.2d 12 (1986), given that the questionnaire covered these matters.

State v. David A. Dearborn, 2008 WI App 131, affirmed, 2010 WI 84, ¶2 n. 3
For Dearborn: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Unanimity is not required on whether the defendant “resisted” or “obstructed” a warden on a charge of violating § 29.951, ¶¶21-42.

All the rest is commentary. (Translated: the court undertakes a lengthy analysis that won’t be summarized.) Of particular note,

State v. Louis H. LaCount, 2008 WI 59, affirming 2007 WI App 116
For LaCount: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding:

¶29 The State was required to prove three elements beyond a reasonable doubt to convict LaCount of securities fraud. First, the prosecution had to establish that LaCount sold Wills a security, here, an investment contract. Wis. Stat. § 551.41. Second, the prosecution had to prove that LaCount made an “untrue statement of a material fact or [omitted] to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made,

State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      Wisconsin Stat. § 901.03(4) (2003-04) recognizes the plain error doctrine. [3] The plain error doctrine allows appellate courts to review errors that were otherwise waived by a party’s failure to object.  State v. Mayo, 2007 WI 78,

State v. Donald W. Jorgensen, 2008 WI 60, reversing unpublished decision
For Jorgensen: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶39      Jorgensen’s right to confrontation was also violated during the prosecutor’s closing argument. The prosecutor took what the jury had improperly heard during the trial a step further. She “testified” that Jorgensen was a “chronic alcoholic” who did not acknowledge his problem,

State v. Sou W. Her, 2008 WI 39, dismissing as improvidently granted, review of unpublished decision
For Her: Donald J. Chewning

Issue/Holding:

¶2        This case involves Her’s agreement to plead guilty in exchange for an aggregate 15-year sentence recommendation from the State (10-years initial confinement with 5-years extended supervision). The record clearly indicates that the district attorney intended Her’s 15-year sentence to match what was believed to be the sentence of Her’s co-defendant,

State v. Miguel E. Marinez, Jr., 2008 WI App 105, (AG’s) PFR filed 7/15/08; prior history: certification, denied 4/3/08
For Marinez: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶1        At issue here is whether a trial judge is prohibited from informing a defendant that the judge intends to exceed a sentencing recommendation in a plea agreement and offering the opportunity of plea withdrawal.