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
Judicial Substitution – Review of Denial, by Writ
State of Wisconsin ex rel. Mateo D.O. v. Circuit Court, 2005 WI App 85 For Mateo D.O.: Colleen Bradley, SPD, Oshkosh Trial Issue/Holding: ¶15. A petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition is an appropriate remedy to redress the denial of judicial substitution. See State ex rel. James L.J. v. Circuit Court for Walworth County, 200 […]
(State) Habeas – Generally, Statutory vs. Common Law – Challenge to Ch. 980 Commitment
State ex rel. Frederick Lee Pharm v. Bartow, 2005 WI App 215 For Pharm: Roisin H. Bell (Pro Bono) Issue/Holding( Dicta): ¶12, n. 6: The State also draws a distinction between statutory habeas corpus and common law habeas corpus, contending that the circuit court properly ruled that Pharm was not entitled to statutory habeas corpus relief because […]
Federal Habeas – Procedure — Appellate — Certificate of Appealability: FRCP 60(b) Motion
Michael A. Sveum v. Smith, 403 F. 3d 447 (7th Cir. No. 05-1255, 3/31/05) Issue/Holding: Denial of FRCP 60(b) motion to reopen, which was in effect a “mislabeled habeas corpus petition reasserting” previously rejected claim, required certificate of appealability. Jones v. Braxton, 392 F.3d 683, 688 (4th Cir. 2004) (district court’s dismissal of motion, on ground it […]
Possession with Intent to Deliver — Sufficiency of Evidence, Proof of Intent
State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236 For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey Issue/Holding: ¶45 We further reject Stank’s argument that insufficient evidence existed to support the “intent to deliver” element of count two. According to Peasley v. State, 83 Wis. 2d 224, 229, 231-32, 265 N.W.2d 506 (1978), the finder of fact may consider […]
Possession with Intent to Deliver, §§ 961.41(1m), 961.01(6) – Sufficiency Of Evidence of Intent to Deliver
State v. Rickey Eugene Pinkard, 2005 WI App 226 For Pinkard: John J. Grau Issue/Holding: Someone holding drugs for another person and planning to return the drugs to that person intends to deliver within the meaning of § 961.41(1m). State v. Smith, 189 Wis. 2d 496, 525 N.W.2d 264 (1995) (conspiracy to deliver not supported where only […]
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Generally
State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113 For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶11 “A defendant seeking to withdraw a plea of guilty or no contest prior to sentencing must show that there is a ‘fair and just reason,’ for allowing him or her to withdraw the plea.” State v. Kivioja, […]
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – Claimed Lack of Understanding Between No-Contest and Guilty Plea
State v. Jeremy K. Morse, 2005 WI App 223 For Morse: Amelia L. Bizarro Issue/Holding: ¶10 Here, the record reflects that Morse failed to demonstrate either a statutory or a Bangert violation. The plea hearing addressed all the appropriate issues and contains no statutory violations. The plea was extensive and complete. The fact that Morse […]
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – “Fair and Just” Reason: Ignorance of Eligibility for Ch. 980 Commitment
State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113 For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Given that the record established Nelson’s ignorance of the potential for commitment as a sexually violent person (ch. 980) as a result of his guilty pleas, the trial court’s conclusion that he presented a “fair and just” reason […]
Plea-Withdrawal – Pre-Sentence – “Substantial Prejudice” to State
State v. Jarmal Nelson, 2005 WI App 113 For Nelson: Wm. J. Tyroler, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether, after Nelson demonstrated a “fair and just” reason for pre-sentencing plea withdrawal, the State satisfied is concomitant burden of showing “substantial prejudice” in order to defeat the motion, where the principal complainant could no longer be found. […]
Appeals — Harmless Error — Suppression Appeal
State v. Xavier J. Rockette, 2005 WI App 205 For Rockette: Timothy A. Provis Issue/Holding: Issue/Holding: Trial court’s error in refusing to order suppression of statement was harmless under § 971.31(10), under following circumstances: ¶27 We conclude that the result in this case would have been the same beyond a reasonable doubt even if the […]
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.