On Point

State v. Guy W. Colstad, 2003 WI App 25
For Colstad: T. Christopher Kelly

Issue/Holding: Authority to administer a preliminary breath test requires probable cause to believe a drunk driving law has been violated. ¶23. Probable cause existed here, given the driver’s (mild) odor of intoxicants; the “suspicious circumstance” of the collision (i.e., with a child on an unobstructed street, and the driver allegedly watching for children);

State v. Richard L. Verkler, 2003 WI App 37
For Verkler: Christopher A. Mutschler

Issue/Holding:

¶1. In State v. Reitter, 227 Wis. 2d 213, 217-18, 595 N.W. 2d 646 (1999), our supreme court held that law officers are under no affirmative duty to advise custodial defendants that the right to counsel does not apply to the implied consent setting.

State v. Jesse H. Swinson, 2003 WI App 45, PFR filed 3/24/03
For Swinson: Pamela Pepper

Issue/Holding: Separate theft by fraud charges, § 943.20(1)(d), involving a scheme to defraud the same victim over a period of time, were not multiplicitous. Though identical in law, they weren’t identical in fact, because each charge involved a distinct false representation, as well as separate volitional acts. 31-32. Nor does legislative intent support telescoping the distinct acts into one charge.

State v. Theodore J. Krawczyk, 2003 WI App 6, PFR filed 1/21/03
For Krawczyk: John T. Wasielewski

Issue: Whether vacating plea-bargain based conviction and (concurrent) sentence for multiplicitous charge was adequate remedy, as opposed to reinstating the not guilty pleas.

Holding:

¶34. We see no reason to disturb the remedy the trial court granted for the double jeopardy violation. First, when a multiplicitous count is reversed on appeal,

State v. Robert J. Stynes, 2003 WI 65, reversing unpublished opinion
For Stynes: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the complaint’s misstatement (by one day) of the date of prior convictions in support of a repeater allegation deprived Stynes of adequate notice, contrary to § 973.12(1) and due process.

Holding:

¶2. We conclude that the complaint provided Stynes with the required notice of the predicate convictions.

State v. Donald R. Wield, 2003 WI App 179, PFR filed 8/28/03
For Wield: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The persistent repeater law, § 939.62(2m) is constitutional; State v. Radke, 2003 WI 7, 259 Wis. 2d 13, 657 N.W.2d 66, controls. ¶¶20-21.

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 an offender convicted of a second Class B non-fatal child sexual assault than the statutes require to be imposed on an offender convicted of a second Class A felony homicide offense.

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. 299 (1932) doesn’t apply: “Thus,

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 on re-sentencing violated due process,

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 conduct an on-the-record colloquy with the defendant outside the presence of the jury.