On Point

State v. Ronnie L. Thums, 2006 WI App 173
For Thums: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The remedy for a sentence imposed under an incorrect penalty scheme is resentencing:

¶14      Both parties agree that if the sentence the circuit court imposed was improper, Thums is entitled to be resentenced as to both components of the bifurcated sentence. We have held that the court did err when it applied TIS-I statutes during sentencing because those penalties were obsolete before Thums’ conduct became chargeable as stalking with a dangerous weapon.

State v. Donald Odom, 2006 WI App 145
For Odom: Eileen Miller Carter; J.C. Moore, SPD, Milwaukee Trial

Issue/Holding: The requirement of sentencing after probation revocation that the judge review the original sentencing transcript, State v. Reynolds, 2002 WI App 15, 249 Wis. 2d 798, 643 N.W.2d 165 (Ct. App. 2001), does not apply to reconfinement after revocation of extended supervision, State v.

State v. Germaine M. Taylor, 2006 WI 22, affirming unpublished summary order
For Taylor: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶28 In terms of the length of his sentence, Taylor argues that there appeared to be no “starting point” for the court of some very low period of confinement, or even the period of confinement recommended by the PSI writer. We cannot agree.

State v. Terry L. Olson, 2006 WI App 32, PFR filed 3/16
For Olson: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether ch. 980 is unconstitutional because the SVP definition of “dangerousness” is not linked to imminent risk.

Holding:

¶5       We deem Olson’s reliance on Lessard misplaced. In 2002, our own supreme court considered a challenge to Wis.

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. Robert L. Kruse, 2006 WI App 179, PFR filed 9/11/06
For Kruse: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding1:

¶2 We agree with Kruse that at a probable cause hearing under Wis. Stat. §980.09(2)(a), the role of the circuit court is to determine whether there is plausible testimony or evidence that, if believed, would establish probable cause that the petitioner is no longer a sexually violent person.

State v. Christopher L. Combs, 2006 WI App 137, PFR filed, 7/20/06
For Combs: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether, on a petition for discharge of an SVP commitment, § 980.09(2)(b), the trial court can refuse to hold a hearing where, although the court-appointed expert concludes that the person was not sufficiently predisposed to sexual violence to meet the definition of a sexually violent person,

 State v. Deryl B. Beyer, 2006 WI 2, on certification; prior history: 2001 WI App 167, cert. denied, Beyer v. Wisconsin, 537 U.S. 1210 (2003)
For Beyer: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether due process was violated by delay of over 22 months between the time the first annual periodic examination report was provided to the circuit court under § 980.07 and the circuit court’s probable cause hearing under § 980.09(2)(a).

State v. Wayne Delaney, 2006 WI App 37
Pro se

Issue/Holding:

¶7        To have his sentence modified, Delaney must overcome two hurdles. First, he must demonstrate that a new factor exists. If so, he next must demonstrate that the new factor warrants sentence modification. State v. Franklin, 148 Wis.  2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989). Whether a fact or set of facts constitutes a new factor is a question of law this court decides without deference to the circuit court’s determination. 

State v. Wayne Delaney, 2006 WI App 37
Pro se

Issue/Holding: Governor Thompson’s 1994 letter to the DOC exhorting pursuit of all available remedies to block release of (pre-TIS) violent offenders reaching their mandatory release date is not a new factor:

¶9        The existence of a new factor must be shown by clear and convincing evidence. Franklin, 148 Wis.  2d at 8-9.