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
Sentence Modification: New Factor — TIS-II, Reduced Penalty In Relation to TIS-I Sentence, Not New Factor
State v. Jose A. Trujillo, 2005 WI 45, affirming summary order of court of appeals For Trujillo: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the TIS-II reduction of penalty, such that this TIS-I defendant was sentenced to confinement exceeding what would have been the TIS-II maximum, is a “new factor” supporting modification of sentence. Holding: ¶21 We […]
Sentence Modification — New Factor — Assistance to Law Enforcement
State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68 For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”) Issue/Holding: “(A) defendant’s substantial and important assistance to law enforcement after sentencing may constitute a new factor that the trial court can take into consideration when deciding […]
SVP – Post-Disposition – Discharge Procedure – Probable Cause Determination, Insufficient Showing on Particular Facts
State v. Robert M. Fowler, 2005 WI App 41, PFR filed 3/9/05For Fowler: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶30 Dr. Harasymiw’s report concludes that Fowler still is a sexually violent person. This was sufficient to support the trial court’s conclusion that it was substantially probable that Fowler would engage in acts of sexual […]
Sentence — Modification (at State’s Behest) — New Factor: Defendant’s Economic Circumstance
State v. Frederick W. Prager, 2005 WI App 95 For Prager: Daniel P. Fay Issue: Whether, six days after original sentencing and imposition of probation, the State’s proffered new factor (that defendant had quitclaimed the jointly owned farm to his wife) supported a modification to an active prison term. Holding: Although the term of probation was […]
Sentencing – Modification — New Factor — General Test
State v. John Doe, 2005 WI App 68 For John Doe: Amelia L. Bizzaro (the court file has been ordered sealed, and the caption amended “to shield the defendant’s identity”) Issue/Holding: ¶6. Thus, sentence modification on the basis of a new factor is a two-step process. Id. First, the defendant must demonstrate, by clear and convincing evidence, that […]
Sentencing – Factors — Guidelines (& Sixth Amendment)
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding: Wisconsin discretionary guideline regime is not governed by the holdings of Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S. Ct. 2531 (2004), and United States v. Booker, 125 S. Ct. 738 (2005), ¶¶20-24.
Sentencing – Review — Inaccurate Information — Necessity of Trial Court Reliance
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding1: Though information before the sentencing court was indisputably inaccurate, the court took remedial action by ordering that this information be stricken, and thus Montroy can’t satisfy his burden of showing actual reliance on inaccurate information. ¶¶9-11. (State v. […]
Bail: as Satisfaction for Court-Ordered Costs
State v. Ryan E. Baker, 2005 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/17/05 For Baker: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The plain text of § 969.02(6) mandates that bail money be used to satisfy court costs, with no room for discretionary return to the depositor rather than payment of costs, ¶¶7-9. This is a […]
Confrontation – Generally: Limitation on Right to Cross-Examine
State v. Harry L. Seymer, 2005 WI App 93 For Seymer: Andrea T. Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the (pro se) sexual assault defendant’s attempt to cross-examine the complainant and principal witness was abruptly terminated by the trial court, purportedly because of the defendant’s “mocking tone” and “derisive behavior”; but where the record did […]
Confrontation – Hearsay: General Test for Admissibility
State v. Glenn H. Hale, 2005 WI 7, affirming, as modified, 2003 WI App 238 For Hale: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶53. A threshold question for applying the Crawford framework is whether the State is proffering “testimonial” hearsay evidence. …¶54. Because Sullivan’s hearsay evidence was “testimonial” in nature, we turn next to […]
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.