On Point

State v. Wayne Charles Slagle, 2007 WI App 117
For Slagle: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶2    … Because the State charged Slagle with keeping or maintaining a “vehicle” used for “keeping” cocaine, the State needed to prove the following three elements:

1.         Slagle kept or maintained a vehicle.

2.         Slagle’s vehicle was used for keeping cocaine. “Keeping” requires that the cocaine be kept for the purpose of warehousing or storage for ultimate manufacture or delivery.

State v. Wayne Charles Slagle, 2007 WI App 117
For Slagle: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶7   The interpretation of the statutory term “keeping” as “warehousing or storage for ultimate manufacture or delivery” comes from State v. Brooks, 124 Wis. 2d 349, 354-55, 369 N.W.2d 183 (Ct. App. 1985). Neither party challenges this interpretation of the statute. [5] Furthermore, Slagle does not dispute that the evidence shows the cocaine in his truck was “for ultimate manufacture or delivery.” The only dispute here is whether the trial evidence shows the cocaine was being “warehoused” or “stored” in Slagle’s truck.

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

Issue/Holding: “A claim of innocence, of course, is not sufficient as a stand-alone reason to permit a plea withdrawal even before sentencing. State v. Harvey, 2006 WI App 26, ¶23, 289 Wis. 2d 222, 239, 710 N.W.2d 482, 490 (‘An assertion of innocence,

State v. Barry M. Jenkins, 2007 WI 96, reversing 2006 WI App 28
For Jenkins: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether Jenkins’ claim that he (wrongly) thought he would be guaranteed an opportunity to work with law enforcement in return for potential sentencing benefit was a fair and just reason to allow pre-sentencing plea withdrawal.

Holding:

¶71      First,

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

Issue/Holding: Unrefuted indications of the child-complainant’s changed recollection of the details and reluctance to testify, ¶¶8-9, established “substantial prejudice” so as to defeat a pre-sentencing motion to withdraw plea:

¶16      A defendant seeking to withdraw a guilty plea before imposition of sentence must establish a fair and just reason and also “must rebut evidence of substantial prejudice to the State.” State v.

State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182
For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶27      A Bangert Motion. A defendant may invoke Bangert only by alleging that the circuit court failed to fulfill its plea colloquy duties. [16] A Bangert motion warrants an evidentiary hearing if (1) the motion makes “aprima facie showing that [the] plea was accepted without the trial court’s conformance with [Wis.

State v. Monika S. Lackershire, 2007 WI 74, reversing 2005 WI App 265
For Lackershire: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: Bangert procedure applies to challenge to failure to establish adequate factual basis where the facts are disputed:

¶50      In the present case, however, the facts are in dispute precisely because the circuit court failed to conduct a sufficient inquiry into the factual basis of the offense charged.

State v. Kevin F. McGuire, 2007 WI App 139, PFR filed 6/4/07
For McGuire: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether a promissory note is a “security” within the meaning of § 551.02(13(a).

Holding: The 4-factor test of In Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 66-67 (1990) applies: “1) the motivations of a reasonable seller and buyer; (2) the note’s ‘plan of distribution’;

State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch

Issue: Whether the scienter element of § 125.075(1) requires proof that the defendant know that a particular individual is under the legal drinking age.

Holding:

¶11   Wille makes much of the fact that Wis. Stat. § 125.075(1) refers several times to the victim in the singular: “to a person under 18 years of age”;

State v. Ronald L. Wille, 2007 WI App 27, PFR filed 2/28/07
For Wille: Jerome A. Maeder, Benjamin Welch

Issue: Whether the evidence was sufficient under § 125.075(1) to show that the defendant had the underage victim had consumed alcohol provided by the defendant at a party for which the defendant supplied beer and sold red cups for the purpose of obtaining the beer (the victim became intoxicated and later died in a traffic accident after leaving the party).