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
Sentence – Modification/Review – New Factor, Extended Supervision – TIS-II Reduction in ES Maximum
State v. Tony G. Longmire, 2004 WI App 90 For Longmire: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶42. Finally, Longmire cites three matters which he argues are “new factors” and thus grounds for the trial court to modify his term of extended supervision: (1) a reduction in the maximum term of extended supervision for the class […]
SVP – Trial – Jury Instructions – Consequences of Discharge
State v. Joseph A. Lombard, 2004 WI App 52, PFR filed 3/19/04 For Lombard: David Karpe Issue: Whether, in response to a jury question during deliberations in this SVP discharge trial, the trial court was obligated to instruct that if Lombard were discharged he would still be subject to 40 years of probation / parole […]
SVP – Post-Disposition: Petition for Discharge Procedure, § 980.09(2) (2004) – Probable Cause Hearing / Full Evidentiary Hearing
State v. Dennis R. Thiel, 2004 WI App 140, PFR filed 7/16/04 For Thiel: Suzanne L. Hagopian Issue: Whether an examiner’s recommendation of supervised release established probable cause that Thiel was no longer a sexually violent person and therefore supported a full evidentiary hearing on release, pursuant to § 980.09(2). Holding: ¶15. Thiel’s claim falls […]
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 […]
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.