On Point

State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10
For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether pre-custodial assertion (during standoff with police) of right to counsel barred interrogation following subsequent arrest.

Holding:

¶13      Hassel is dispositive here. … Observing that Miranda safeguards apply only to custodial interrogations and that Hassel did not argue he was in custody when he invoked his right to silence,

State v. Yediael Yokrawn Backstrom, 2006 WI App 114
For Backstrom: Timothy A. Provis

Issue: Whether re-administration of Miranda warnings was necessary where the suspect had previously waived those rights following a “full and proper recitation twenty-one hours earlier.”

Holding:

¶11      Based on the record presented, we conclude that the trial court did not err in failing to suppress Backstrom’s statement.

State v. Thomas G. Kramer, 2006 WI App 133, PFR filed 7/10
For Kramer: Timothy A. Provis

Issue1: Whether failure to electronically record Kramer’s interrogations requires suppression.

Holding1: Although the supreme court exercised supervisory authority granted it under Wis. Const. Art. VII, § 7, to require recording of juvenile interrogations, State v. Jerrell C.J., 2005 WI 105, the grant of authority to court of appeals under Wis.

State v. Juan F. Milanes, 2006 WI App 259, PFR filed 12/7/06For Milanes: Joan M. Boyd

Issue/Holding:

¶21      … Further, appellate counsel cited an unpublished case in her opening brief, contrary to Wis. Stat. Rule 809.23(3). This does not appear to be inadvertent, since the citation ends with the parenthetical “(unpublished).” Our supreme court has reasoned that the rule against citing unpublished cases is essential to the reduction of the overwhelming number of published opinions and is a necessary adjunct to economical appellate court administration.

City of Sheboygan v. Steven Nytsch, 2006 WI App 191, PFR filed 9/11/06

For Nytsch: Chad A. Lanning

Issue/Holding: ¶18 n. 6:

…This court is not so naïve as to believe that unpublished opinions, whether one-judge opinions, per curiam opinions or authored opinions sit in a file serving as dinner for book lice. [A tiny, soft-bodied wingless psocoptera,

State ex rel. Luis Santana v. Endicott, 2006 WI App 13

Issue/Holding1: A claim that lapsed direct appeal rights should be restored on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel must be sought via habeas filed in the court of appeals, pursuant to State v. Knight, 168 Wis. 2d 509, 484 N.W.2d 540 (1992):

¶1        … Although Santana may seek habeas relief on his ineffective assistance claim,

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

Issue/Holding: Odom is entitled to full sentence credit on both his reconfinement and new sentence, given that they are concurrent, ¶34:

(B)ecause Odom was sentenced on the same day to concurrent sentences for his revocation of extended release and the new burglary charge, he is entitled to dual credit.

State ex rel. Perry Van Hout v. Endicott, 2006 WI App 196, PFR filed 10/11/06
For Van Hout: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding:

¶23      Where a defendant has specifically directed counsel not to file a no-merit report after being advised of his or her options, counsel is not free to ignore the defendant’s direction. We discussed the nature of the attorney-client relationship in State v.

State v. Lee Terrence Presley, 2006 WI App 82
For Presley: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:   Sentence credit is required for for days spent in jail between dates of revocation of extended supervision in an earlier case and sentencing on both the revoked supervision and a new case.

¶10      Presley submits that Beets requires sentence credit until the day he was sentenced for the extended supervision revocation—the same day he was sentenced on the new charge—because like the offender in Beets,

State v. David R. Kaster, 2006 WI App 72, PFR filed 4/26/06; prior appeal: 2003 WI App 105
For Kaster: Robert R. Kaster

Issue/Holding:

¶9 Kaster next argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain the disorderly conduct charge. …. Kaster has not demonstrated a “sufficient reason” under § 974.06(4) to overcome the fact that he failed to raise his challenge on direct appeal.