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.
Important posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentencing — Procedure — Pleading Requirements, Dual Bangert and Nelson/Bentley Motion
State v. Andrae D. Howell, 2007 WI 75, reversing 2006 WI App 182 For Howell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶74 The Bangert and Nelson/Bentley motions, however, are applicable to different factual circumstances. [47] A defendant invokes Bangert when the plea colloquy is defective; a defendant invokes Nelson/Bentley when the defendant alleges that some factor extrinsic to the plea colloquy, like ineffective assistance of counsel or coercion, […]
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentence — Procedure: Prima Facie Showing, Relative to Rights Waived – Illiterate Defendant, Perfunctory Colloquy
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: On the particular facts (illiterate defendant, no written questionnaire, perfunctory colloquy) the defendant was entitled to a Bangert hearing on whether the understood the nature of the rights waived by his guilty plea. With respect to waiver of right to […]
Plea-Withdrawal, Post-sentence — Procedure: Prima Facie Showing, Relative to Knowledge of Charge – Illiterate Defendant, Perfunctory Colloquy
State v. James E. Brown, 2006 WI 100, reversing summary order For Brown: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: The defendant demonstrated a prima facie showing that his guilty plea was inadequate, where he was illiterate (such that a plea questionnaire wasn’t even prepared) and the trial court’s colloquy was superficial, ¶¶53-58. The facts are sufficiently extreme […]
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09 – Sufficiency of Notice of Element of “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy”
State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06 For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue: Whether the phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” in § 942.09 is unconstitutionally vague, where the conduct involved videotaping women in a second-floor bathroom in their own house. Holding: ¶39 However, this court and the supreme court […]
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09 – Element of “Reasonable Expectation of Privacy,” Construction
State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06 For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue/Holding: ¶19 The phrase “reasonable expectation of privacy” is not defined in Wis. Stat. § 942.09, nor are the individual words. However, the words “expectation of privacy” have a common meaning that can be ascertained with reference […]
Representations Depicting Nudity, § 942.09 – Sufficiency of Evidence
State v. Mark E. Nelson, 2006 WI App 124, PFR filed 6/22/06 For Nelson: Robert R. Henak; Amelia L. Bizzaro Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction under § 942.09 for videotaping into a bathroom notwithstanding that the window was open, under the following circumstances: ¶53 Applying this standard, we conclude the evidence was sufficient for […]
Guilty Pleas – Withdrawal of Plea — Post-sentencing — Coercion – Grounds: “Package” Agreement, Youthfulness of Defendant
State v. Timothy J. Goyette, 2006 WI App 178 For Goyette: E.J. Hunt, Kathleen M. Quinn Issue: Whether Goyette was coerced into pleading guilty under a “package” agreement (one “contingent on two or more codefendants all entering pleas according to the terms of the agreement”), given the seriousness of the charges and the youthfulness (age […]
Detainers – Violation of Interstate Detainer Act, Failure of Sending State to Notify Prisoner: Dismissal Not Remedy
State v. Jeffrey Townsend, 2006 WI App 177, PFR filed 8/18/06 For Townsend: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Because the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, § 976.05, doesn’t prescribe dismissal as a sanction for a state’s failure to notify a prisoner of a lodged detainer, dismissal as a remedy for such a violation is not supported: ¶17 […]
Extradition – Rule of Specialty
State ex rel. Kenneth Onapolis v. State, 2006 WI App 84, PFR filed 5/25/06 Pro se Issue/Holding: Extradition from Australia to Wisconsin to face bank fraud and federal tax charges did not preclude, under the Rule of Specialty, Onapolis’s return on an outstanding parole violation warrant, at least where the parole violations included the fraud and tax offenses. […]
Deferred Prosecution Agreement (Domestic Abuse), § 971.37 – Post-Revocation Withdrawal Comes within Test for Post-Sentencing Motion
State v. Sean M. Daley, 2006 WI App 81, on remand, PFR filed 5/10/06; prior history: 2005 WI App 260, decision vacated and remanded, 2006 WI 25 For Daley: Kirk B. Obear Issue/Holding: Motion for plea-withdrawal following revocation of a deferred prosecution agreement but before sentencing has been imposed is gauged by the manifest injustice […]
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.