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
Statements – Voluntariness – Juveniles
A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004) Issue/Holding: … In fact, the Supreme Court has consistently recognized that a confession or waiver of rights by a juvenile is not the same as a confession or waiver by an adult. A defendant’s age is an important factor in determining whether a confession is voluntary. …… […]
Constitutional Nature of Right to Appeal
State ex rel. Richard A. Ford v. Holm, 2004 WI App 22, PFR filed 3/1/04 For Ford: James R. Troupis, State Bar Pro Bono Project For Amicus (SPD): Marla Stephens, Director; Patricia K. Flood, First Asst.SPD Issue/Holding: ¶2 A person convicted in Wisconsin of committing a crime has a constitutionally guaranteed right to appeal his […]
Briefs – Citing Unnpublished Opinions
State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler Issue/Holding: Citation to an unpublished 7th Circuit case is proper, ¶18 n. 6: Wisconsin Stat. Rule 809.23(3) does not prohibit us from citing unpublished opinions from other jurisdictions. Predick v. O’Connor, 2003 WI App 46, ¶12 n.7, 260 Wis. 2d 323, 660 […]
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State v. Iran D. Evans, 2004 WI 84, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals For Evans: Robert R. Henak Issue/Holding: ¶30.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 […]
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.