On Point

State v. Van G. Norwood, 2005 WI App 218
For Norwood: Terry Evans Williams

Issue: Whether defendant’s letter to the trial court, stating that he did not want the case to go to trial; that he wished to be placed in a facility in the care of “mental doctors”; and that the court sentence him for a Class B felony, was admissible.

Holding:

¶20      We agree with Norwood that Wis.

State v. Richard L. Bowers, 2005 WI App 72
For Bowers: George Tauscheck

Issue/Holding: The State’s immediate correction of recommended disposition in excess of the plea bargain’s limit rendered the breach insubstantial and therefore not actionable; State v. Knox, 213 Wis. 2d 318, 321, 570 N.W.2d 599 (Ct. App. 1997), followed:

¶12. We reach the same conclusion here. While the State did not correct itself with tremendous enthusiasm and zeal and while the trial court did not reflect upon the State’s “earnest”

State v. Brad S. Miller, 2005 WI App 114
For Miller: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶8        In State v. Sprang, 2004 WI App 121, 274 Wis. 2d 784, 683 N.W.2d 522, we explained that when a prosecutor breaches a plea agreement by arguing for a harsher sentence than the one the prosecutor agreed to recommend and defense counsel fails to object,

State v. Denis L.R., 2005 WI 110, affirming as modified 2004 WI App 51
For Intervenor Dawn R.: Dwight D. Darrow

Issue/Holding: Revelation of a child’s statement to a counselor, discussing whether or not she had been sexually abused, may not be resisted on ground of privilege:

¶7        We do not address these issues regarding waiver because we conclude that there is no privilege here.

State v. Maurice S. Ewing, 2005 WI App 206
For Ewing: David R. Karpe

Issue/Holding: Where the defendant waived his rights and gave pre-trial statements to the police and presented an alibi defense at trial, prosecutorial evidence that the defendant had not revealed the alibi during those statements, and exploitation of that omission during closing argument, did not amount to impermissible comment on silence. “Rather, the prosecutor was highlighting the inconsistency between what Ewing did say and what his alibi witnesses testified to at trial.” ¶¶10-13.

State v. Richard C. Plank, 2005 WI App 109
For Plank: Jamy Richard Johansen

Issue: Whether a voluntary guilty plea to a TIS offense requires knowledge of ineligibility for parole or good-time credit.

Holding:

¶15      Plank contends that because Byrge holds that parole eligibility is a direct consequence, the lack of parole eligibility under truth-in-sentencing is also a direct consequence.

State v. Kenneth V. Harden, 2005 WI App 252
For Harden: Ralph Sczygelski

Issue/Holding: Misinformation with respect to the maximum punishment (defendant was told the maximum was 19 years, 6 months when the correct maximum was 16 years) necessarily renders the guilty plea invalid, without regard to whether the misinformation affected the decision to plead guilty, ¶¶5-6, effectively overruling State v. Paul Delao Quiroz,

State v. Lionel N. Anderson, 2005 WI App 238
For Anderson: Harry R. Hertel; Steven H. Gibbs

Issue/Holding: Where the State’s expert witness never interviewed the victim (nor viewed a videotape of the victim’s statement), the defendant wasn’t entitled to a psychological examination of the victim pursuant to State v. Maday, 179 Wis. 2d 346, 359-60, 507 N.W.2d 365 (Ct. App. 1993), ¶27.

State v. Sheldon C. Stank, 2005 WI App 236
For Stank: Dennis P. Coffey

Issue/Holding: Proof of the controlled substance is sufficient where a “presumptive” test is followed by a “confirmatory” one (State v. Dye, 215 Wis. 2d 281, 572 N.W.2d 524 (Ct. App. 1997), followed), with the PDR being used to establish the presumption:

¶42      Here,

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:

¶40      In deciding the issue of foundation,