On Point

State v. Dennis Thiel, 2004 WI App 225
For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the court must appoint an examiner for the subject under § 980.08(3) when it has already appointed one under § 980.08(4).
Holding:

¶17. The parties agree that the language of Wis. Stat. § 980.08(3) requires the circuit court to appoint an examiner for the court, and we concur.

Kimberly S.S. v. Sebastian X.L., 2004 WI App 83

Issue: Whether § 48.415(4) requires proof that an underlying family court order denying physical placement contained the warnings required by § 48.356(2).

Holding:

¶7. The plain language of Wis. Stat. § 48.415(4) requires proof that the notices in Wis. Stat. § 48.356(2) were provided only when the underlying order was issued in juvenile court.

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding: “Second, Arredondo claims that his trial attorney failed to impeach Garza’s testimony with false statements Garza made to the police. This claim fails on both the deficiency and prejudice prongs. Arredondo cannot show prejudice because Garza admitted on direct-examination that he lied to the police….,” ¶33.

Alphonso Hubanks v. Frank, 392 F. 3d 926 (04-1043, 12/22/04)
For Hubanks: Robert J. Dvorak

Issue/Holding:

Habeas relief is appropriate pursuant to § 2254(d)(1) if the state court identified the right legal principle as determined by the Supreme Court but unreasonably applied that principle to the facts of the case. The standard for proving an unreasonable application of federal law, however, is more demanding than for proving an erroneous application of that law.

State v. George Melvin Taylor, 2004 WI App 81, PFR filed 4/13/04
For Taylor: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶18. Accordingly, we must now turn to the Batson challenge itself. Our supreme court has adopted the Batson principles and analysis. State v. Lamon, 2003 WI 78, ¶22, 262 Wis. 2d 747,

 A.M. v. Butler, 360 F.3d 787 (7th Cir. 2004)

Issue/Holding1:

In determining whether a person is “in custody,” the question is whether, examining the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the petitioner’s position would have felt “at liberty to terminate the interrogation and leave.” Thompson v. Keohane, 516 U.S. 99, 112 (1995). In making this determination, “the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation.”Berkemer v.

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. ……

Here, the circumstances weigh in favor of a determination that Morgan’s inculpatory statements were involuntary.

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 or her conviction to this court. WIS.

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 N.W.2d 1,

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 that they may.

Review of reconfinement has been a sticking point for some time,