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
Writs – Prohibition – John Doe Proceeding
State ex rel. Individual v. Davis, 2005 WI 70, on certification Subpoenaed Individual: Stephen P. Hurley, Marcus J. Berghahn, Hal Harlowe Issue/Holding: ¶15 A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary remedy that normally will not issue except in the absence of other adequate remedies. [6] As a remedy, writs of prohibition are often used in […]
Ambiguity in Oral Pronouncement, Resolved by Written Judgment
State v. Edward W. Fisher, 2005 WI App 175 For Fisher: Eileen Miller Carter Issue/Holding: ¶16 Fisher’s contentions grossly misrepresent the record. Assuming the court’s oral ruling contained some ambiguity, the written judgment of conviction and the conditions of extended supervision are crystal clear with respect to what conduct the conditions cover. See Jackson v. Gray, 212 Wis. […]
Sentencing – Review – Consecutive Sentences
State v. Lonnie C. Davis, 2005 WI App 98 For Davis: Pamela Moorshead Issue/Holding: ¶24 Davis next contends that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it imposed consecutive sentences without an adequate explanation of why that was the minimum amount of time necessary. We reject this claim.¶25 The trial court explained why the […]
Sentencing Review – Consecutive Sentences – Unrelated Past Offenses
State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue/Holding: ¶17. Finally, Matke argues that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion when it ordered, without explanation, that Matke’s present sentence be consecutive to any other sentences he was then serving. … ¶18. The sole infirmity that Matke cites […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – TIS
State v. Edward W. Fisher, 2005 WI App 175 For Fisher: Eileen Miller Carter Issue/Holding: ¶21 Fisher argues that the circuit court did not satisfy the mandate in State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, ¶¶39, 76, 678 N.W.2d 197, that the court exercise its discretion on a “rational and explainable basis.” We […]
Sentencing – Factors – Proof of, Generally
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. The latter cases are implicated only when a […]
Sentencing Factors – Prior Juvenile Adjudications (Where Unrepresented)
State v. James L. Montroy, 2005 WI App 230 For Montroy: Jay E. Heit; Stephanie L. Finn Issue/Holding: ¶13 Montroy also argues that the PSI improperly included two of his juvenile adjudications, when there was no evidence that he was represented by counsel. [5] The State concedes that the Department of Corrections guidelines mandate that unrepresented juvenile […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – Public Protection
State v. Eduardo Jose Trigueros, 2005 WI App 112 For Trigueros: Eileen Miller Carter Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously exercised sentencing discretion by placing too much weight on the need to protect the public, by placing defendant on probation with one year in the House of Correction, on possession with intent to deliver one gram […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – Youthfulness of Defendant
State v. Lonnie C. Davis, 2005 WI App 98 For Davis: Pamela Moorshead Issue: Whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion by failing to consider the defendant’s youthfulness (14 years 9 months) at the time he committed the sexual assaults. Holding: ¶16 A review of the sentencing transcript demonstrates that the trial court did not erroneously […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – Probation
State v. Eduardo Jose Trigueros, 2005 WI App 112 For Trigueros: Eileen Miller Carter Issue/Holding: ¶8 Second, Trigueros claims that the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion because it did not consider probation as an option. Again, we disagree. In each case, the sentence imposed shall “call for the minimum amount of custody or confinement […]
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.