Explore in-depth analysis
On Point is a judicial analysis blog written by members of the Wisconsin State Public Defenders. It includes cases from the Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Supreme Court of Wisconsin, and the Supreme Court of the United States.
Costs for Standby Counsel
State v. John W. Campbell, 2006 WI 99, on certification
For Campbell: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶72 Wisconsin Stat. § 973.06 permits the court to impose a lengthy list of costs upon an unsuccessful defendant. At sentencing, the court may require a probationer to reimburse the county or the state, as applicable, “for any costs for legal representation . . . for the defense of the case.”
Stop – Basis – Automobile: Display of Temporary Plate
State v. Raymond Lord, Jr., 2006 WI 122, reversing unpublished opinion
For Lord: George A. Tauscheck
Issue: Whether the police may stop an automobile solely because it displays a temporary license plate.
Holding:
¶4 … Law enforcement officers cannot stop an automobile to determine whether it is properly registered unless the officers have reasonable suspicion or probable cause to believe that either the automobile is being driven contrary to the laws governing its operation or that any occupant is subject to seizure in connection with the violation of an applicable law.
Stop – Basis – Already-Parked Car (Dicta)
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
(Apparent Dicta): Though a “close question,” in that “(w)hen a marked squad car pulls up behind a car, activates emergency flashers, and points a spotlight at the car, it certainly presents indicia of police authority,” ¶65, the court is “reluctant to conclude that the positioning of the officer’s car,
Stop – Basis – Test: Failure to Yield to Authority / Hodari D.
State v. Charles E. Young, 2006 WI 98, affirming 2004 WI App 227
For Young: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue/Holding:
¶26 Under Hodari D. and Kelsey, an uncomplied-with show of authority cannot constitute a seizure. …
…
¶37 Mendenhall is the appropriate test for situations where the question is whether a person submitted to a police show of authority because,
Exposing Minors to Harmful Materials, § 948.11(2) — Sufficiency of Evidence — Failure to Expose Those Alleged Materials to Jury
State v. Tyrone Booker, 2006 WI 79, reversing 2005 WI App 182
For Booker: Jeffrey W. Jensen
Issue: Whether conviction under § 948.11, exposing child to harmful materials, can be sustained where the jury heard the children’s and a detective’s descriptions of the videotape but did not themselves view it.
Holding:
¶25 When we view the evidence in this case most favorably to the State,
Arrest — Search Incident to Arrest — “Laxative Search”
State v. Tomas Payano-Roman, 2006 WI 47, reversing 2005 WI App 118
For Payano-Roman: Timothy A. Provis
Issue: Whether post-arrest administration of a laxative, in order to recover a substance the arrestee had swallowed was an unreasonable intrusion, such that the result was suppressible.
Holding:
¶36 More helpful than border search jurisprudence is Winston v. Lee,
(State) Habeas Procedure, Generally
State ex rel Marvin Coleman v. McCaughtry, 2006 WI 49, reversing and remanding summary order of court of appeals, reconsideration denied, 2006 WI 121
For Coleman: Brian Kinstler
Issue/Holding:
¶18 A petition for writ of habeas corpus commences a civil proceeding wherein the petitioner claims an illegal denial of his or her liberty. State ex rel. Zdanczewicz v.
No-Merit Report – Defendant’s Right to Access PSI
State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification
For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison
AppellateAmicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales
Issue/Holding:
¶30 We reject Parent’s contention that Wis. Stat. § (Rule) 809.32(1)(d) confers an unqualified right for a no-merit appellant to access personally the PSI report. …¶31 But neither are we persuaded by the State’s argument, which would place the onus on the defendant to demonstrate a “substantial need”
Appellate Procedure: Finality of Order
State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, affirming, 2004 WI App 39
For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: An order granting the State’s motion to reconsider an SVP’s supervised release was final and appealable:
¶26 We disagree with Schulpius’s characterization of the November 2000 order. Even though the circuit court did not initially characterize it as a final order,
Guilty Pleas – Required Knowledge – Maximum Punishment: Possible Consecutive Sentences
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: A plea colloquy is not required to caution the defendant that punishment for each of multiple charges could be imposed consecutively, ¶78.
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
On Point is sponsored by Wisconsin State Public Defenders. All content is subject to public disclosure. Comments are moderated. If you have questions about this blog, please email [email protected].
On Point provides information (not legal advice) about important developments in the law. Please note that this information may not be up to date. Viewing this blog does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Wisconsin State Public Defender. Readers should consult an attorney for their legal needs.