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
SVP – Post-Disposition: Petition for Discharge Procedure – Delay in Implementing Remand Order of Appellate Court
State v. Dennis R. Thiel, 2004 WI App 140, PFR filed 7/16/04 For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian Issue/Holding: ¶27. We now turn to the second issue on appeal-that being, whether Thiel’s due process rights were violated because the circuit court failed to initiate proceedings following remand by this court and therefore nothing occurred until Thiel […]
SVP – Trial – Special Verdicts – Equal Protection
State v. Jesse J. Madison, 2004 WI App 46, PFR filed 3/12/04 For Madison: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶5. Alternatively, Madison argues that he has a constitutional right, on equal protections grounds, to a special verdict. See Wis. Const. art. I, § 1. This equal protection argument stems from an alleged disparate application of special verdicts, […]
SVP – Trial – Special Verdicts – Trial Court Discretion
State v. Jesse J. Madison, 2004 WI App 46, PFR filed 3/12/04For Madison: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶3. Madison first claims that he has a statutory right to a special verdict under Wis. Stat.§ 805.12(1). See State v. Rachel, 224 Wis. 2d 571, 575, 591 N.W.2d 920 (Ct. App. 1999) (Wis. Stat. ch. 980 proceedings are […]
Sentencing – Review — Factors — Defendant’s Age
State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181 For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler Issue: Whether the sentencing court placed insufficient weight on defendant’s elderly age as a mitigating factor, and the likelihood he would not survive the confinement portion of his sentence. Holding: ¶12. We agree with Stenzel that his age is a factor that […]
Sentencing – Review — Factors — Defendant’s Life Expectancy
State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181 For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler Issue: Whether the sentencing court placed insufficient weight on the likelihood defendant would not survive the confinement portion of his sentence. Holding: ¶17. Stenzel faults the court for not assigning any relevancy to his life expectancy. He argues that he was seventy-eight […]
Sentencing – Factors: Basing Length of Extended Supervision Term on Making Restitution Payments
State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the sentencing court erroneously exercised discretion, or violated equal protection, in setting an excessive length of extended supervision so as to ensure that the defendant satisfies the restitution order. Holding: “¶39. We conclude that the trial court’s sentencing […]
Sentencing – Review — Harsh & Excessive, Generally
State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181 For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler Issue/Holding: ¶21. Finally, Stenzel asserts that the court erroneously exercised its discretion because the sentence is unduly harsh and unconscionable. When a defendant argues that his or her sentence is unduly harsh or excessive, we will hold that the sentencing court […]
SVP – Postdisposition: Supervised Release – Reconsideration – Procedure
State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue/Holding: ¶41 The State urges us to hold that Wis. Stat. § 980.08(6m), not § 806.07(1)(h), applies and the State seeks relief from a chapter 980 committee’s status of supervised release when the committee has not yet […]
Competency: Discharge / Reevaluation
State v. Keith M. Carey , 2004 WI App 83, PFR filed 4/22/04 For Carey: Paul LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶10. Pursuant to Wis. Stat. § 971.14(5)(a), if the court finds that a defendant is not competent, but is likely to become competent, it may commit the defendant to the custody of the department of […]
Appellate Procedure – Standard of Review: Testify, Defendant’s Right to
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: ¶11. A defendant’s right to testify is a fundamental constitutional right. State v. Simpson, 185 Wis. 2d 772, 778, 519 N.W.2d 662, 663 (Ct. App. 1994). A defendant may, however, waive the right to testify. State v. Wilson, […]
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.