On Point

State v. Kevin Brown, 2006 WI App 41
For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶10      We first examine the trial court’s reliance on the earlier order and its determination that it was “the law of the case.” Citing Univest Corp. v. General Split Corp., 148 Wis. 2d 29, 38, 435 N.W.2d 234 (1989), Brown argues:

The law of the case doctrine is inapplicable.

State v. Quentrell E. Williams, 2006 WI App 212
For Williams: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: ¶23, n.5:

 Williams also contends that the evidence was relevant to whether he intentionally caused harm to A.B.A. because intentional child abuse is a specific intent crime. However, Williams was acquitted of intentionally causing harm to a child. Thus, he cannot show that he was prejudiced in his defense as to intentionally causing harm to a child by his attorney’s failure to introduce that evidence.

State v. Randy Mcgowan, 2006 WI App 80
For Mcgowan: Dianne M. Erickson

Issue/Holding: Wrongful admission of misconduct evidence was reversible error:

¶37      Based on our review, we are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the admission of Janis’s testimony did not contribute to the verdict. The State’s case was based entirely on various recollections about events that occurred years earlier. [3] The defense disputed many of those recollections and noted the lack of physical evidence of any sort corroborating physical abuse by a large man of a small child.

State v. Anthony D., 2006 WI App 218
For Anthony D.: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Dicta: ¶7 n. 2:

We note that the language of the juvenile restitution statute differs from that of the criminal restitution statute, Wis. Stat. § 973.20. The criminal statute does not require the court to make a finding that the defendant can pay the restitution amount,

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

Issue/Holding: Any error in exclusion of evidence claimed necessary to support the theory of imperfect self-defense would have been harmless:

¶26      …  Our inquiry, therefore, is whether it is “clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendant guilty absent the error.” Neder v.

State v. Bruce T. Davis, 2006 WI App 23
For Davis: Russell Bohach

Issue/Holding: Misjoined counts were harmful error, notwithstanding a curative instruction, where the only evidence connecting Davis to the crimes were eyewitnesses who, although they ID’ed Davis, gave “quite varied” descriptions to the police, ¶22.

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.