On Point

State v. Michael J. Parent, 2006 WI 132, on certification
For Parent: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate
Amicus: Meredith J. Ross & William E. Rosales

Issue/Holding: (Procedure generally described, State v. Christopher G. Tillman, 2005 WI App 71, ¶17, quoted with approval, ¶¶18-23; see also ¶¶35-41, taking note of Wilkinson v. Cowan, 231 F.3d 347 (7th Cir.

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:

¶49      We conclude that the attorney general comes under the purview of Wis. Stat. § 972.15(4) and (4m) (2005-06) because, in criminal appeals, the attorney general is often the State’s successor to the district attorney. … We therefore conclude that under §§ 972.15 and 967.02(7) the attorney general’s office should submit any requests to obtain a copy of the PSI report and to disclose its contents in the State’s brief to the circuit court for the purposes of a no-merit appeal.

State v. Roger S. Walker, 2006 WI 82, affirming as modified summary order
For Walker: James Rebholz

Issue/Holding: In order to obtain review, a defendant must file a postconviction motion to modify sentence, even if the event was a re-sentencing which came to the same result as originally imposed.

¶37      In the hope of clarifying appellate procedure, we conclude that when a defendant seeks modification of the sentence imposed at resentencing,

State v. Rachel W. Kelty, 2006 WI 101, reversing unpublished decision
For Kelty: Michael J. Fairchild

Issue/Holding:

¶2     We are asked to decide whether an otherwise satisfactory guilty plea is sufficient to relinquish a double jeopardy/multiplicity challenge upon direct appeal. We conclude that a guilty plea relinquishes the right to assert a multiplicity claim when the claim cannot be resolved on the record.

 State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2006 WI 77, reversing 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel

Issue/Holding:

¶36      The parties agree with the court of appeals that the circuit court’s communications with the jury outside the presence of the defendant is error, violating the defendant’s constitutional and statutory right to be present.  We agree with the parties.…

¶63      (W)hatever the requirement for an accused’s waiver of the right to be present when a circuit court communicates with the jury,

Racine Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. State of Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals, 2006 WI 86

Issue/Holding:

¶14      By granting deference to agency interpretations, the court has not abdicated, and should not abdicate, its authority and responsibility to interpret statutes and decide questions of law. Some cases, however, mistakenly fail to state, before launching into a discussion of the levels of deference, that the interpretation and application of a statute is a question of law to be determined by a court. 

State v. Shirley E., 2006 WI 129, affirming 2006 WI App 55
For Shirley E.: Andrea Taylor Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶63      Depriving a parent of the statutory right to counsel in a termination of parental rights proceeding deprives the parent of a basic protection without which, according to our legislature, a termination of a parental rights proceeding cannot reliably serve its function.

State v. John C. Brown, 2006 WI 131, affirming 2006 WI App 44
For Brown: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Amicus: Robert R. Henak and Amelia L. Bizzaro; Walter J. Dickey & David E. Schultz

Issue/Holding:

¶22     We conclude that a reconfinement decision, like an initial sentencing decision, involves the circuit court’s discretion, and we review the circuit court’s decision to determine whether that discretion was erroneously exercised. 

State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2006 WI 1, affirming, 2004 WI App 39
For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding1: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release did not “shock the conscience,” hence did not violate substantive due process, where the failure occurred despite good-faith, substantial efforts to comply with the order, ¶31.

Issue/Holding2: Failure to place Schulpius on court-ordered supervised release violated procedural due process.

State v. Larry A. Tiepelman, 2006 WI 66, reversing 2005 WI App 179
For Tiepelman: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, on a claim that the sentence violated due process because based on inaccurate information, the defendant must show not only sentencing court reliance on the inaccurate information, but also prejudicial reliance.

Holding:

¶2        We hold that in a motion for resentencing based on a circuit court’s alleged reliance on inaccurate information,