On Point

State v. David Arredondo, 2004 WI App 7, PFR filed 1/22/04
For Arredondo: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding: Prior acquittal of sexual assault didn’t prevent admissibility of testimony from that trial: the test is whether a reasonable jury could find by preponderance of the evidence that the defendant committed the misconduct, State v. Landrum, 191 Wis. 2d 107, 117, 528 N.W.2d 36, 41 (Ct.

State v. Peter R. Cash, 2004 WI App 63
For Cash: Lynn M. Bureta

Issue: Whether a plea agreement, which provided that if Cash returned stolen goods prior to sentencing the State would request that the judgment be reopened and amended from burglary to Class E felony theft, was invalid and the guilty plea therefore invalid as well, under the logic of State v. Hayes,

State v. Anthony L. Dawson, 2004 WI App 173
For Dawson: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶25. In sum, the State has not presented us with a valid rationale for upholding the denial of Dawson’s plea withdrawal motion. Dawson has established that his plea was not knowing and voluntary because it was induced by the promise of a possible future benefit that could never be conferred.

State v. Anthony L. Dawson, 2004 WI App 173
For Dawson: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a plea bargain under which the State agrees to subsequently reopen the case and amend it to a lesser charge is legally unenforceable and, thus, renders the plea unknowing and involuntary.

Holding: A reopen-and-amend provision in a plea agreement is unauthorized and unenforceable under State v.

State v. Rex E. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/8/04
For Wollenberg: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶14. Wollenberg cites State v. Jankowski, 173 Wis. 2d 522, 528, 496 N.W.2d 215 (Ct. App. 1992), to support his claim that he cannot be convicted on the basis of a legal nullity. Jankowski, however, dealt with a different scenario.

State v. Rex E. Wollenberg, 2004 WI App 20, PFR filed 1/8/04
For Wollenberg: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether Wollenberg is entitled to withdraw his plea because the procedure for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA), § 971.39, wasn’t followed.

Holding:

¶6. Wollenberg presents no evidence, other than his own arguments, that there was a DPA under Wis. Stat.

State v. Richard G. White, 2004 WI App 78, (AG’s) PFR filed 4/1/04
For White: James A. Rebholz

Issue/Holding (General Standards):

¶14. There are three hurdles that evidence of a person’s other acts must clear: (1) the evidence must be “relevant,” Wis. Stat. Rules 904.01 & 904.02; (2) the evidence must not be excluded by Wis. Stat. Rule 904.04(2); and (3) the “probative value”

State v. Victor Naydihor, 2004 WI 43, affirming 2002 WI App 272, 258 Wis. 2d 746, 654 N.W.2d 479

For Naydihor: Philip J. Brehm

Issue: Whether the State’s allocution amounted to an end-run violation of its obligation to recommend probation at sentencing by stressing Naydihor’s “lengthy history of polysubstance abuse,” his presentation of danger to the community, harm he caused the victim,

State v. Brian W. Sprang, 2004 WI App 121
For Sprang: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the prosecutor breached the plea agreement, which called for recommendation of probation but left a free hand to argue terms and conditions, by expressly referring to the possibility of treatment in a prison setting and by implicitly endorsing PSI and sex offender report recommendations for prison.

Holding:

¶21 Turning back to Sprang’s claim,

State v. Jesse Liukonen, 2004 WI App 157
For Liukonen: Russell L. Hanson

Issue:Whether the State breached the plea agreement to cap its sentencing recommendation at a total of 17 years’ incarceration, by asserting: “the more I looked at this case, the more I heard from the victims, the more I argue today, I realize that Mr. Liukonen I think got an extreme break by the system here”;