On Point

State v. Esteban Martinez, 2007 WI App 225
For Martinez: George Limbeck

Issue/Holding: A Wisconsin inmate paroled to serve sentence in another jurisdiction is not entitled to credit for that service against subsequently-revoked Wisconsin parole; State v. Rohl, 160 Wis. 2d 325, 466 N.W.2d 208 (Ct. App. 1991), followed and State v. Kevin Brown, 2006 WI App 41, distinguished:

¶16      Rohl subsequently filed a motion for sentence credit. 

State v. Terrill J. Hintz, 2007 WI App 113, (AG’s) PFR granted 9/11/07
For Hintz: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Where an extended supervision hold is based at least in part on arrest on a new offense, § 973.115(1)(a) awards credit for time spent in custody under the hold against the sentence ultimately imposed for conviction of that offense.

Note that it does not matter that a signature bond was issued for the new offense:

¶11      Finally,

State v. Dwight Glen Jones, 2007 WI App 248
For Jones: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

 ¶13   Although an indigent defendant does not have the right to pick his or her trial lawyer, Mulkovich v. State, 73 Wis. 2d 464, 474, 243 N.W.2d 198, 203–204 (1976) (“This court has frequently said that, except in cases of indigency, a defendant may have whatever counsel he chooses to retain and may refuse to accept the services of counsel he does not want.”),

State v. Thomas C. Burton, 2007 WI App 237
For Burton: Timothy A. Provis

Issue/Holding:

¶11   As to the lack of contemporaneous objection, we note that Burton argued strenuously before Warmington testified that his proposed testimony would be irrelevant and prejudicial, and asked that he be subjected to a voir dire outside the jury’s presence. The circuit court denied Burton the requested voir dire [1] and further ruled that Warmington could offer testimony going to the truthfulness of the witnesses and to Burton’s intent.

State v. Heather A. Markwardt, 2007 WI App 242, PFR filed 11/29/07
For Markwardt: Richard Hahn

Issue/Holding:

¶13  … The State’s citation for the first time on appeal to Davis and Ross is not a new argument but citation to additional authority. Citation to additional authority and legal analysis on appeal does not constitute “new argument” or advancement of a new theory on appeal.

State v. Caltone K. Cockrell, 2007 WI App 217, PFR filed
For Cockrell: Paul R. Nesson, Jr.

Issue/Holding: ¶44, n. 14:

The State also argues that Cockrell waived his right to object on this ground because he did not move for a mistrial. We agree with Cockrell that the case the State relies on for this argument, State v.

State v. Martin V. Yanick, Jr., 2007 WI App 30
Pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶1    … We conclude that, when a defendant has served conditional jail time and his or her probation is later revoked and the defendant commences serving an imposed and stayed sentence, the defendant is entitled to sentence credit for days spent in custody while in conditional jail time status, even if that custody is concurrent with service of an unrelated prison sentence.

State v. Scott R. Nelson, 2007 WI App 2, PFR filed 1/22/07
For Nelson: Joseph L. Sommers

Issue/Holding: ¶7 n. 3:

Because Nelson is making facial challenges to the constitutionality of chapter 980, the State’s assertion that Nelson has waived his constitutional arguments lacks merit. See State v. Bush, 2005 WI 103, ¶19,

State v. Frederick W. Rushing, 2007 WI App 227, PFR filed 10/25/07
For Rushing: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The State’s silent acquiescence to judicial action (sua sponte withdrawal of a guilty plea) didn’t work judicial estoppel bar to mounting subsequent challenge to that ruling, ¶14.

 State v. Donald W. Thexton, 2007 WI App 11, PFR filed 1/02/07
For Thexton: Kirk B. Obear

Issue/Holding:

¶6       Thexton next claims that the circuit court erred in considering the PSI from his prior conviction. On realizing that the PSI in this case had been prepared with extensive reference to the PSI from Thexton’s prior conviction, Thexton’s attorney objected to the circuit court that he could not adequately respond to it because he did not have access to the prior PSI.