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
Defenses – Issue Preclusion: TPR
Brown County DHS v. Terrance M., 2005 WI App 57 For Terrance M.: Theresa J. Schmieder Issue/Holding: Because TPR cases are generally a subset of custody cases; and because claim preclusion is available as a means of discouraging groundless requests for modification of custody, both claim and issue preclusion “may also be applied when the facts […]
OWI – Penalty Provision – Timing of Priors
State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue: Whether the number of prior OWI convictions used for penalty enhancement, § 346.65(2), is determined as of date offense is committed or date of sentencing for offense. Holding: ¶5. How and when to count prior OMVWI convictions for purposes of penalty […]
OWI — Evidence – Admissibility, Field Sobriety Tests
State v. Richard B. Wilkens, 2005 WI App 36 For Wilkens: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: ¶14. In Wisconsin, the general standard for admissibility is very low. Generally, evidence need only be relevant to be admissible. See Wis. Stat. § 904.02; State v. Eugenio, 219 Wis. 2d 391, 411, 579 N.W.2d 642 (1998) (“All relevant evidence is admissible unless otherwise […]
OWI — Implied Consent, Driver’s Request for Additional Test, § 343.305 (5)(a), Made After Release From Custody – Timeliness
State v. Patrick J. Fahey, 2005 WI App 171 Issue: Whether requested alternative testing at agency expense is deemed a “request” within § 343.305(5)(a) where made after driver was released from custody, left police department, and then returned about 15 minutes later, ¶7. Holding: ¶14 … The State, in keeping with the circuit court’s decision, argues […]
Enhancer — TIS-I
State v. Kent Kleven, 2005 WI App 66 For Kleven: Roberta A. Heckes Issue/Holding: Where sentencing includes multiple enhancers, the court may identify the amount of confinement attributable to each enhancer, without violating the rule that an enhancer doesn’t support a separate sentence. ¶¶16-18. (The court adds, however, ¶18 n. 4, that the “better practice” is to […]
Due Process – Sex Offender Registration Juvenile – Constitutionality
State v. Jeremy P., 2005 WI App 13 For Jeremy P.: Adam B. Stephens Issue/Holding: Because mandatory sex offender registration for certain juvenile offenders, §§ 938.34(15m)(bm) and 301.45(1m), is not punishment it does not violate procedural due process, ¶¶8-15. The court’s retention of discretion in administering registration defeats a substantive due process claim, ¶22. An equal protection […]
Enhancer — Allocation
State v. Kent Kleven, 2005 WI App 66 For Kleven: Roberta A. Heckes Issue/Holding: ¶14. We conclude that, provided the sentence imposed exceeds the maximum term of imprisonment established for the base offense, a court’s remarks attributing a portion of the sentence to an applicable enhancer does not constitute grounds to vacate that portion of […]
OWI – Penalty Provision – Enhancement – Proof (and Apprendi)
State v. Brandon J. Matke, 2005 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/6/05 For Matke: James B. Connell Issue/Holding: ¶16. Matke also contends that the trial court’s interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2), which is now ours as well, violates due process because it permits the court to sentence him for a sixth OMVWI without requiring the State to […]
Costs — Bail, as Satisfaction
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 misdemeanor, but the relevant […]
Terry Frisk – Scope, “Effective” Patdown: Inconclusive Result as Supporting Further Intrusion
State v. Martin D. Triplett, 2005 WI App 255 For Triplett: Syovata Edari, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate / Milwaukee Trial Issue: Whether the officer’s inability to perform an “effective” patdown permitted a further intrusion that led to the discovery of contraband. Holding: ¶12 Our supreme court has not, however, addressed the scope of a permissibleTerry search where an […]
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.