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 – Pretrial – Petition — Timeliness — Post-Petition Grant of Jail Credit Not Affecting<
State v. Shawn Virlee, 2003 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/3/03 For Virlee: Jack E. Schairer Issue: Whether post-petition grant of jail credit deprived the court of competency to proceed, where the petition was filed within 90 days of the pre-grant release date, but would be untimely when calculated against the post-grant date. Holding: ¶17. […]
SVP – Post-Disposition – Discharge Petition — Probable Cause Hearing
State v. Henry Pocan, 2003 WI App 233 For Pocan: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: Pocan established probable cause for a discharge hearing where the psychologist conducting the reevaluation and using actuarial tables unavailable at the time of original commitment found no substantial probability of reoffending: ¶11. The State argues that Wis. Stat. […]
SVP – Pretrial Release
State v. Shawn Virlee, 2003 WI App 4, PFR filed 1/3/03 For Virlee: Jack E. Schairer Issue: Whether ch. 980 violates due process and/or equal protection because it doesn’t allow for pretrial release. Holding: ¶14. We decline to address Virlee’s due process and equal protection arguments because he fails to establish, and we do not see, how […]
Sentencing – Modification – New Factor – General Test
State v. Randy D. Stafford, 2003 WI App 138 For Stafford: Robert G. LeBell Issue/Holding: ¶12. … To obtain sentence modification, a defendant must establish that (1) a new factor exists, and (2) the new factor justifies sentence modification. State v. Franklin, 148 Wis. 2d 1, 8, 434 N.W.2d 609 (1989). Whether a fact or set […]
SVP – “Serious Difficulty Controlling Behavior”
State v. Ray A. Schiller, 2003 WI App 195 For Schiller: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶11. However, a “serious difficulty in controlling behavior” is not about whether a person has the ability to make choices….¶12. The Crane Court further indicated that we must not only consider whether the person has the ability […]
Sentencing – Review — Harshness — Sexual Assault
State v. Richard G.B., 2003 WI App 13, PFR filed 1/13/03 For Richard G.B.: Bridget E. Boyle Issue/Holding: Sentence of 18 years for sexual assault of a child (mouth-vagina intercourse with 15 year-old niece) wasn’t harsh and excessive, measured against a maximum possible sentence of 20 years. Trial court also “articulated its reasoning for the sentence […]
Sentencing – Review — Harshness — Exceeding Life Expectancy
State v. Peter C. Ramuta, 2003 WI App 80, PFR filed 4/3/03 For Ramuta: Peter M. Koneazny, Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Sentence of initial confinement of 35 years not excessive: ¶25. Although we recognize that trial courts should impose “‘the minimum amount of custody’” consistent with the appropriate sentencing facts, State v. Hall, 2002 […]
SVP – Sufficiency of Evidence – Different Expert Opinions
State v. Joseph A. Lombard, 2003 WI App 163, affirmed, other grounds, 2004 WI 95 For Lombard: David R. Karpe Issue/Holding: Evidence sufficient to support commitment though only one state’s expert supported commitment against three defense experts: ¶21 … The State’s expert, a psychologist who evaluated Lombard for the purpose of determining whether proceedings under […]
SVP – Sufficiency of Evidence – Actuarial Data
State v. James Lalor, 2003 WI App 68, PFR filed 4/15/03 For Lalor: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: Evidence based on actuarial instruments (RRASOR; PCL-R; MnSOST-R; V-RAG), to the effect that of people with similar scores about 50% reoffend within five years and 70% within ten years, supports finding of substantial likelihood to engage in sexual […]
Confrontation – Bias: Pending Charges – Sentence Received by Prosecution Witness without Plea-Bargained Benefit
State v. Bryan Hoover, 2003 WI App 116, PFR filed 6/26/03 For Hoover: Glenn C. Cushing, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The defense wasn’t entitled to cross-examine a prosecution witness about the sentence he received on an otherwise unrelated charge, where the witness wasn’t offered a benefit in exchange for his testimony. Allowing the defense to […]
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.