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
Resentencing – Illegal Sentence: Maximum Term of Initial Confinement Exceeded
State v. Brandon L. Mason, 2004 WI App 176 For Dawson: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Where the term of initial confinement exceeds the permissible maximum, based on the rule that this term may not exceed 75% of the total sentence, the error is not harmless even though the term is less than the maximum […]
Presentence report – Miranda-Related Safeguards
State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04 For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Because the “presentence investigation was not part of the accusatory stage of a criminal proceeding”; and because the PSR “interview was routine and was not conducted while Jimmie’s jeopardy was still in doubt, Jimmie, […]
Presentence Report — Court-Ordered — Admissibility, Trial Involving New Charge
State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04 For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the holding of State v. Crowell, 149 Wis. 2d 859, 440 N.W.2d 352 (1989) with respect to confidentiality of presentence reports “only prohibited use of information obtained during the presentence investigation in a subsequent […]
Presentence Report — Defense-Prepared — Admissibility, Trial Involving New Charge
State v. Jimmie R.R., 2004 WI App 168, motion for reconsideration denied 9/15/04 For Jimmie R.R.: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶¶21-22: Confidentiality of court-ordered presentence reports, State v. Crowell, 149 Wis. 2d 859, 440 N.W.2d 352 (1989) is not a right applicable to defense-prepared PSRs, State v. Thomas A. Greve, 2004 WI 69. Thus, the defendant’s statements in a D-PSR […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Jury Instructions – Omitted Element
State v. Timothy Scott Bailey Smith, Sr., 2004 WI App 116, reversed on other grounds, 2005 WI 104 For Smith: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶10 The State points out that omissions in jury instructions are subject to a harmless-error analysis. See State v. Harvey, 2002 WI 93, ¶6, 254 Wis. 2d 442, […]
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Defendant’s Prior Record
State v. Sylvester Sigarroa, 2004 WI App 16, PFR filed 1/2/04 For Sigarroa: John Pray, UW Law School Issue/Holding: A witness’s improper reference to the defendant’s prior criminal history was not prejudicial, where the judge ordered it struck, gave the standard final instruction on ignoring all things stricken, and the evidence of guilt was overwhelming. […]
Ch. 880 Guardianship Proceeding: Authority to Order Support In
Amy Z. v. Jon T., 2004 WI App 73 For Jon T.: Geoffrey Dowse Issue/Holding: ¶18. We conclude that the circuit court had the authority to order child support in the context of the Wis. Stat. ch. 880 proceeding. We do so in light of the constitutional grant of broad plenary power to the circuit […]
Applicability of Interstate Compact on Mental Health, § 51.75. to NGI Commitment
State v. Richard A. Devore, 2004 WI App 87, PFR filed 4/21/04 For Devore: Catherine M. Canright Issue/Holding: ¶1 Richard Devore appeals an order denying his motion to be transferred to Minnesota under the Interstate Compact on Mental Health, WIS. STAT. § 51.75. He contends the circuit court erred when it concluded that, as a matter of […]
Resentencing — Correction of “Good Faith Mistake” by Sentencing Court
State v. Bart C. Gruetzmacher, 2004 WI 55, on certification For Gruetzamacher: Jennelle London Joset Issue/Holding: ¶14. We now decide whether circuit courts should be allowed to correct obvious errors in sentencing where it is clear that a good faith mistake was made in an initial sentencing pronouncement, where the court promptly recognizes the error, and […]
Sentence Modification/Review – New Factor, Extended Supervision – Reduction in Restitution
State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶47. Finally, we acknowledge (and the State does not dispute) that the amount of restitution the court ordered Longmire to pay played a significant role in the court’s determination of the length of extended supervision it ordered. […]
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.