On Point

State v. Thomas H. Bush (III), 2005 WI 103, reversing in part and affirming on the merits, 2004 WI App 193
For Bush: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: Although an “as applied” challenge to a statute may be waived, a facial challenge, in contradistinction, is not waivable, ¶17:

¶18 This rule is also entirely consistent with our line of cases that recognize that a criminal complaint which fails to allege any offense known at law is jurisdictionally defective and void.

State ex rel. Leroy Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, summary order
For Riesch: Christopher J. Cherella

Issue/Holding:

¶13. Certiorari review for parole revocation is limited to four questions: “(1) whether the agency stayed within its jurisdiction; (2) whether it acted according to law; (3) whether its action was arbitrary, oppressive or unreasonable, representing its will, not its judgment; and (4) whether the evidence was such that it might reasonably make the order or determination in question.” 

State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73<
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose

Issue/Holding:

¶40      The test for this harmless error was set forth by the Supreme Court in Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967), reh’g denied, 386 U.S.

State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2005 WI 47, reversing unpublished COA opinion; and overruling State v. Paul J. Stuart, 2003 WI 73
For Stuart: Christopher W. Rose

Issue/Holding: Confrontation error deemed harmful, where the following evinced the tainted evidence’s impact: prosecutor’s litigation strategy, ¶51; jury’s reaction (which included repeated requests to have tainted testimony read back;

Brown County v. Shannon R., 2005 WI 160, reversing unpublished opinion
For Shannon R.: Brian C. Findley, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the circuit court erroneously exercised discretion in precluding expert testimony on the issue of whether the TPR respondent is likely to be able to meet the conditions for return of her children.

Holding:

¶71      The State’s interest in terminating parental rights promptly does not outweigh the requirements of fundamental fairness and Shannon R.’s constitutionally protected due process right to be heard in a meaningful manner.

State v. James Hubert Tucker, Jr., 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals
For Tucker: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶2 We conclude, based on our holding in State v. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, ___ Wis. 2d ___, ___ N.W.2d ___, that the reduced maximum confinement penalties under TIS-II do not constitute new factors when a defendant such as Tucker moves for the modification of sentences imposed under TIS-I.

State v. Jose A. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals
For Trujillo: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶13 We define a new factor as “an event or development which frustrates the purpose of the original sentence,” Champion, 258 Wis. 2d 781, ¶4, and recognize it to be more than a change in circumstances since the time of sentencing. 

State v. Richard A. Brown, 2005 WI 29, reversing 2004 WI App 33, 269 Wis. 2d 750, 767 N.W.2d 555
For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶8. The issue presented by the parties in the instant case is whether a circuit court’s denial of a chapter 980 petition for supervised release should be classified as a determination of a question of law or as an exercise of circuit court discretion.

State ex rel. Leroy Riesch v. Schwarz, 2005 WI 11, summary order
For Riesch: Christopher J. Cherella

Issue/Holding:

¶11. Since granting the petition for review in this case, we have determined that the issue presented is moot as to Riesch. “An issue is moot when its resolution will have no practical effect on the underlying controversy.” State ex rel. Olson v. Litscher,

State v. Michael S., 2005 WI 82, reversing unpublished decision
For Michael S.: Susan Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶6 Reviewing courts generally decline to decide moot issues but may do so under certain circumstances. [3] A court may decide a moot issue when the issue is of great public importance; occurs frequently and a definitive decision is necessary to guide the circuit courts;