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.
Enhancer — TIS-I – Calculation (Unclassified Felony)
State v. Michael D. Jackson, 2004 WI 29, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals
For Jackson: Joseph E. Schubert
Issue/Holding:
¶42 Applying the rule of lenity, we conclude that Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(b)6 should be read together with Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(c) in calculation of the maximum term of confinement for unclassified felonies with penalty enhancers under TIS-I. We apply the 75% rule of Wis.
Enhancers, § 939.62(2m)(b)2 – Not Cruel and Unusual Punishment
State v. Michael D. Lewis, 2004 WI App 211
For Lewis: Timothy A. Provis
Issue/Holding: Sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole, as persistent repeater due to prior conviction for sexual assault of a child, on a current conviction for child enticement isn’t cruel / unusual punishment under the 8th amendment. ¶¶16-18.
DNA Collection, § 973.047, and Surcharge, § 973.046 — Prior Collection
State v. Franciollo L. Jones, 2004 WI App 212, PFR filed 11/11/04
For Jones: Syovata Edari; Ellen Henak (on PFR), SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue: Whether the trial court properly ordered Jones to pay a DNA surcharge even though he had already provided a DNA sample in an earlier case.
Holding:
¶5 WISCONSIN STAT. § 973.047 obligates the trial court to require anyone convicted of a felony to provide a DNA specimen.
Due Process – Judicial Intervention in Presentation of Case
State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148
For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin
Issue/Holding:
¶58. Carprue contends that he was denied his due process right to a fair trial because Judge Schellinger was not impartial. His evidence consists of the judge’s actions in calling and questioning Morrow and in questioning Carprue.¶59. “A fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process.”
Due Process – Defendant’s Right to Testify – Waiver
State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz
Issue:Whether the defendant’s explicit waiver of his right to testify was conditional (on the outcome of two defense witnesses) such that another colloquy should have been conducted; or, if the waiver is deemed binding, whether the trial court nonetheless erroneously exercised discretion in refusing the defendant’s request, after the close of evidence,
Enhancer — § 940.03, Felony-Murder (1999-2000)
State v. Brandon L. Mason, 2004 WI App 176
For Dawson: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate
Issue/Holding: The felony murder statute, § 940.03 (1999-2000), contains characteristics suggestive of both penalty enhancers (it adds a specified term to the maximum penalty applicable to the underlying crime), ¶15, and also substantive offenses (it is located in a chapter that defines substantive offenses; and it incorporates the elements of offenses located elsewhere),
First Amendment – Overbreadth – Juvenile Curfew
Hodgkins v. Peterson, 355 F.3d 1048 (7th Cir. 2004)
Issue/Holding:
In order not to offend the First Amendment, a statute that regulates the time, place, and manner of expression must be (1) content neutral, (2) narrowly tailored to serve a significant governmental interest, and (3) allow for ample alternative channels for the expression. Ward, 491 U.S. at 791, 109 S. Ct. at 2753.
Earned Release Program (“ERP”), § 973.01(3) — Trial Court’s Authority to Determine When as Well as Whether Defendant Is Eligible — Identity of “CIP” Purpose
State v. Miyosha White, 2004 WI App 237, PFR filed 12/1/04
For White: Leonard Kachinsky
Issue/Holding: A sentencing court exercising discretion on eligibility for the earned release program, § 973.01(3g), has authority to determine not only whether but also when the defendant is eligible for the program. The language and purpose of the earned release statute is “almost identical” to the “boot camp” statute, § 973.01(3m),
Reasonable Suspicion Issues – Frisk – Refusing to Keep Hands out of Pockets – No Per Se Rule
State v. Joshua O. Kyles, 2004 WI 15, affirming court of appeals’ unpublished decision
For Kyles: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate
Issue: Whether a per se rule should be adopted allowing a frisk whenever individuals fail to comply with police directives to keep their hands out of their pockets.
Holding:
¶48. We do not adopt, as the State urges,
Challenge Incarceration Program (“Boot Camp”) – §§ 973.01(3m), 302.045 – Authority to Impose Waiting Period for Entry
State v. David A. Lehman, 2004 WI App 59, PFR filed 3/4/04
For Lehman: Leonard D. Kachinsky
Issue/Holding: Sentencing court may impose 4-year waiting period for entry into Challenge Incarceration Program (“boot camp”), §§ 302.045, 973.01(3m):
¶17. The intent of the legislature is therefore advanced by an interpretation of Wis. Stat. § 973.01(3m) that allows a sentencing court to determine not only whether a defendant is eligible for the CIP,
Important Posts
Ahead in SCOW
Sign up
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.