On Point

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”;

State v. Rudolph L. Jackson, 2004 WI App 132, PFR filed 6/15/04
For Jackson: Andrea Cornwall, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the prosecutor violated an agreement not to make a specific sentencing recommendation by expressing outrage at recommendations proffered on Jackson’s behalf and by urging the court to take into account the deterrent effect of its sentence.

Holding:

¶14. Jackson contends that the prosecutor breached the plea negotiation as his statements constituted an “end-run”

State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4, affirming 2003 WI App 63, 260 Wis. 2d 805, 659 N.W.2d 501
For Lagundoye: Geoffrey Y. Muwonge

Issue/Holding:

¶26. Likewise, it is clear that under Wisconsin’s formulation of the Teague doctrine, the rule we announced in Douangmala was “new.” “‘[A] case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.’” 

State v. Olayinka Kazeem Lagundoye, 2004 WI 4, affirming 2003 WI App 63
For Lagundoye: Geoffrey Y. Muwonge

Issue/Holding: Holding of State v. Sisakhone S. Douangmala , 2002 WI 62 (non-citizen’s guilty plea invalid if colloquy omits deportation consequences, regardless of whether defendant in fact knows those consequences) does not apply retroactively to defendants who have already exhausted their direct appeals.

State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2004 WI 107, affirming 2002 WI App 293, 259 Wis. 2d. 455, 655 N.W.2d 131
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue1: Whether the trial court must advise a guilty plea defendant personally on the record that the court isn’t bound by a plea agreement, and ascertain whether the defendant understands this information.
Holding1:

¶27 In Wisconsin,

State v. Denis L.R., 2004 WI App 51, affirmed as modified, 2005 WI 110
For Denis L.R.: Richard Hahn; Dwight D. Darrow

Issue/Holding:

¶15. This court recently analyzed whether waiver of the attorney-client privilege must be intentional under Wis. Stat. § 905.11. Sampson Children’s Trust v. Sampson 1979 Trust, 2003 WI App 141, 265 Wis.

State v. Charles Brown, 2004 WI App 179
For Brown: John J. Grau

Issue: Whether a plea bargain that cannot be fulfilled results in an unknowing and involuntary plea, notwithstanding that the terms incapable of fulfillment are collateral consequences of the plea (sex offender registration and SVP eligibility).
Holding:

¶6 … (S)ince Brown’s misunderstanding involved the collateral consequences of his pleas,2 the State contends that Brown cannot prove that his pleas were not knowing and voluntary.

State v. Johnnie Carprue, 2004 WI 111, reversing 2003 WI App 148
For Carprue: Stephanie G. Rapkin

Issue/Holding:

¶39 … (A)ppellate courts are sensitive to judicial intervention by a trial judge in the form of judicial witnesses and judicial questioning ….

¶40 … We have always recognized judicial authority to call and interrogate witnesses but simultaneously admonished caution against judicial abuse.

State v. Victor K. Johnson, 2004 WI 94, affirming unpublished decision of court of appeals

Issue: Whether the State impermissibly cross-examined the defendant about the truthfulness of another witness.

Holding:

¶2. We conclude that the purpose and effect of the prosecutor’s cross-examination of Johnson was to impeach Johnson’s credibility, not to bolster the credibility of another witness, because both Johnson and the other witness were testifying to their personal observations about the same events.