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
Enhancer — § 939.62(2m)(a), Persistent Repeater — Validity – Due Process
State v. Alan R. Radke, 2003 WI 7, affirming 2002 WI App 146 For Radke: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶5. The precise question raised, therefore, is whether the “two strikes” law violates the Due Process Clause of either the United States or Wisconsin Constitution because it requires a greater penalty to be imposed on […]
Enhancers — Persistent Offender — §§ 939.62(2m)(a)1m, (b)2 and (c) — Comparable Prior, Since-Repealed Statute: Child Sexual Assault, § 940.225(1)(d) (1977-78)
State v. Donald R. Wield, 2003 WI App 179, PFR filed 8/28/03 For Wield: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: In determining whether a prior conviction under a since-repealed statute is a serious child sex offense comparable to § 948.02(1) so as to invoke the persistent repeater law, the “elements only” test of Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. […]
Due Process – Resentencing – Increase in Original Sentence After Appellate Relief
State v. William J. Church (II), 2003 WI 74, reversing 2002 WI App 212, 257 Wis. 2d 442, 650 N.W.2d 873; earlier history: State v. William J. Church, 223 Wis.2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998), petition for review dismissed as improvidently granted, 2000 WI 90 For Church: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether an increase in sentence […]
Due Process – Defendant’s Right to Testify – Personal Waiver Required
State v. Patricia A. Weed, 2003 WI 85, affirming unpublished opinion of court of appeals For Weed: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: A defendant has a “fundamental” constitutional right to testify on his or her own behalf. ¶39. ¶43. Accordingly, in order to determine whether a criminal defendant is waiving his or her right to testify, a circuit court should […]
Due Process – Defendant’s Right to Testify, as Affected by Intent to Commit Perjury – Counsel’s Role
State v. Derryle S. McDowell, 2003 WI App 168, affirmed, 2004 WI 70, ¶¶42-47 For McDowell: Christopher J. Cherella Amici: Keith A. Findley, John T. Savee, John A. Pray, Frank Remington Center & WACDL Issue/Holding: The defendant’s right to testify does not include a right to testify falsely, Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157 (1986): ¶37. From Nix, we derive five principles that […]
Enhancers — Collateral Attack on, at Sentencing
State v. Thomas A. Drexler, 2003 WI App 169, PFR filed 8/1/03 For Drexler: Ralph A. Kalal Issue/Holding: In support of a collateral attack on a prior OWI conviction used to enhance a current OWI prosecution, Drexler submitted an affidavit asserting that the trial court had not advised him of his right to counsel: although this was […]
Enhancers — Multiple Enhancers — §§ 939.62(1)(b), 961.48(2)
State v. Paul R. Maxey, 2003 WI App 94 For Maxey: Douglas I. Henderson Issue/Holding: A sentence may be enhanced by both the general repeater provision of § 939.62(1)(b) (1999-2000) and § the specific repeat drug offender provision of § 961.48(2) (1999-2000), given the rationale of State v. Richard W. Delaney, 2003 WI 9: ¶14. In summary, […]
Suppression Hearing – PBT Result – Expert Not Necessary
State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25 For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly Issue/Holding: Expert testimony is not a prerequisite for admission of a PBT result at a suppression hearing. ¶29.
Warrants — Probable Cause — Child Pornography
State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03 For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the search warrant was supported by probable cause to believe that the defendant currently possessed child pornography. Holding: ¶17. “[E]very probable cause determination must be made on a case-by-case basis, looking at the totality of […]
Warrants – Scope – Particularity Requirement – Photographs
State v. John Lee Schaefer, 2003 WI App 164, PFR filed 8/21/03 For Schaefer: Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The search warrant satisfied the particularity requirement by authorizing seizure of the following: “[p]hotographs, movies, slides, videotape, negatives, and/or undeveloped film which would tend to identify … any other juvenile”; and “[m]agazines, books, movies, and photographs […]
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.