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 – 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State v. William L. Morford, 2004 WI 5, on review of unpublished decision For Morford: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue/Holding: ¶41 The State urges us to hold that Wis.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, […]
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. […]
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.