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
Writs – Certiorari – Availability
State ex rel. David C. Myers v. Swenson, 2004 WI App 224, PFR filed 11/24/04 For Myers: Christopher T. Sundberg; Bruce D. Huibregtse Issue/Holding: ¶8. Myers appears to argue that the Wisconsin courts retain the ability to conduct certiorari review of a Wisconsin inmate’s due process or equal protection challenge to a disciplinary action, even […]
Writs – Certiorari – Judicial Act – Review Limited to Determining Tribunal’s Jurisdiction
State v. Christopher Swiams, 2004 WI App 217 For Swiams: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶8. … The State contends, however, that reconfinement orders may only be reviewed via common-law certiorari and not under Wis. Stat. Rule 809.30. It relies on State v. Bridges, 195 Wis. 2d 254, 536 N.W.2d 153 (Ct. App. […]
Writs – Supervisory – General
State ex rel Ralph A. Kalal v. Circuit Court for Dane County, 2004 WI 58 For Kalal: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: ¶17 A “writ of supervision is not a substitute for an appeal.” State ex rel. Dressler v. Circuit Court for Racine County, 163 Wis. 2d 622, 630, 472 N.W.2d 532 (Ct. App. 1991). The […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – TIS, Generally
State v. Wallace I. Stenzel, 2004 WI App 181 For Stenzel: Martin E. Kohler Issue/Holding: ¶6. In State v. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, 270 Wis. 2d 535, 678 N.W.2d 197, the Wisconsin Supreme Court revisited the seminal case in sentencing jurisprudence, McCleary v. State, 49 Wis. 2d 263, 182 N.W.2d 512 (1971) …¶7. The appellate standard […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – Proof: Prior Acquittal
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: ¶54. It is “‘well established that a sentencing judge may take into account facts introduced at trial relating to other charges, even ones of which the defendant has been acquitted.’” United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148, 152 (1997) (per curiam) […]
Sentencing Review – Factors – Articulation of Reasons for Sentence – Truth-in-Sentencing
State v. Curtis E. Gallion, 2004 WI 42, affirming 2002 WI App 265 For Gallion: Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee App Amici: Robert R. Henak, WACDL; Walter J. Dickey, et al., UW Law School Issue/Holding: (The singular importance of this case requires this very lengthy excerpt, albeit without the footnotes which don’t seem to add substantive content.) ¶38. […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Presentation/Examination of Witnesses – Opening Door to “Haseltine” Evidence, on Tactical Grounds
State v. John R. Maloney, 2004 WI App 141, affirmed, 2005 WI 74 For Maloney: Lew A. Wasserman Issue/Holding: ¶18. Maloney complains trial counsel invited a Haseltine violation against him by asking on cross-examination whether Skorlinski believed anything Maloney had told him in the investigation. See State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984). We disagree.… ¶21. […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Presentation/Examination of Witnesses – Defendant’s Testimony from Prior Trial in Different Case
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: ¶49. Arredondo further claims that his trial lawyer should have moved to admit pursuant to Wis. Stat. Rule 908.045(1) (declarant unavailable) the transcript of Arredondo’s testimony at the 1995 sexual-assault trial. Arredondo contends that the trial court would have […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Presentation/Examination of Witnesses – Defendant’s Testimony: Waiver of and Revocation of Waiver
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04 For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz Issue/Holding: ¶27. Arredondo argues that his trial lawyer was ineffective for advising him not to testify. We disagree. At the Machner hearing, Arredondo’s attorney testified that he advised Arredondo not to testify for two main, albeit related, reasons. First, the lawyer testified […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance: Failure to File Suppression Motion
State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63 For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta Issue/Holding: Counsel was not ineffective for failing to file a suppression motion based on his assessment that the arrest was supported by probable cause; “the highly incriminating evidence against Cash known” to the authorities before the arrest in fact supported probable cause, […]
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.