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
Reconfinement After Revocation of Extended Supervision – Review under § 809.30
State v. Christopher Swiams, 2004 WI App 217 For Swiams: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶4 The question presented by this appeal is whether persons sentenced to a bifurcated term of imprisonment whose extended supervision is revoked may seek relief under WIS. STAT. RULE 809.30 from the trial court’s reconfinement order. We hold […]
Appellate Procedure: Finality of Order — Special Proceeding
State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51, affirmed on other grounds, 2005 WI 110 For Denis L.R.: Richard Hahn; Dwight D. Darrow Issue/Holding: ¶10, n. 3: Dawn originally commenced this appeal by filing a petition for leave to appeal a nonfinal order. However, we determined that the order was final because it concluded a […]
Criminal Appeals, Duties of Counsel, Generally
State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals For Evans: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: ¶30. During postconviction proceedings, a defendant must choose between being represented by the SPD, proceeding pro se, or securing private representation. State v. Redmond, 203 Wis. 2d 13, 19, 552 N.W.2d 115 (Ct. App. 1996). A defendant […]
Interlocutory Appeal – Issues Limited to Those Presented in Petition for Leave to Appeal
State v. Henry W. Aufderhaar, 2004 WI App 208, PFR filed 11/16/04 For Aufderhaar: J. Paul Neumeier Jr.; Raymond E. Krek Issue/Holding: ¶1 The major holding here is that when this court accepts an interlocutory appeal, the appellant is limited to briefing only those issues presented in the petition for leave to appeal and may […]
Discovery – (Independent) DNA Testing, § 974.07(6)(a)
State v. Kenneth A. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99 For Hudson: David D. Cook Issue/Holding: ¶11. Hudson first argues that under Wis. Stat. § 974.07(6)(a), the State must “make available” physical evidence containing biological material for independent DNA testing. Subsection (6)(a) states: Upon demand the district attorney shall disclose to the movant or his or her […]
Discovery – (Court-Ordered) DNA Testing, § 974.07(7)
State v. Kenneth A. Hudson, 2004 WI App 99 For Hudson: David D. Cook Issue/Holding: ¶13. Hudson also argues he is entitled to court-ordered DNA testing under Wis. Stat. § 974.07(7)(a). Subsection (7)(a) requires the trial court to order DNA testing when the following four conditions are met: A court in which a motion under sub. […]
Motion for Reconsideration – While (SVP) Appeal Pending
State v. Shawn D. Schulpius, 2004 WI App 39, PFR granted 4/20/04 For Schulpius: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Pendency of appeal doesn’t prevent trial court from hearing motion to reconsider, ¶33, n. 8: Second, Schulpius argues that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to grant on November 29, 2000, the State’s motion for reconsideration because […]
Record on Appeal — Missing Transcript: Appellate Court Assumes that Missing Material Supports Trial Court Ruling
State v. John S. Provo, 2004 WI App 97, PFR filed 5/7/04 For Provo: William H. Gergen Issue/Holding: ¶19 … Further, Provo has not made the transcript of the plea hearing a part of the record. Consequently, we must assume that the transcript of that hearing supports the trial court’s finding that Provo’s plea was […]
Appellate Procedure: Raising Claim Preclusion, § 802.06(8)(b)
State ex rel Kim J. Barksdale v. Litscher, 2004 WI App 130 Issue/Holding: ¶12. Accordingly, we agree with the trial court that the only reasonable reading of Wis. Stat. § 802.06, as applied to certiorari proceedings, is that a party who has unsuccessfully moved to dismiss on other grounds may still seek dismissal grounded on claim […]
Restitution — Limitations — Causation and Special Damages
State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶13. Restitution awarded under Wis. Stat. § 973.20(5)(a) is limited in two ways relevant to our present analysis. First, before a trial court may order restitution “there must be a showing that the defendant’s criminal activity was a substantial factor […]
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.