On Point

State v. Timothy T. Clark, 2003 WI App 121
For Clark: Rodney Cubbie

Issue/Holding: Existence of, and compliance with, a police policy on conducting an inventory search relates only to the reasonableness of the search and not the seizure of the item searched:

¶11. Here, the State contends that the search of the vehicle was a valid inventory search. “Although an inventory search is a ‘search’

State v. James W. Keith, 2003 WI App 47, PFR filed 3/5/03
For Keith: Christopher A. Mutschler

Issue/Holding: Evidence not suppressible merely because seized by officer effectuating stop outside of his or her jurisdiction: there is no “reason to ignore the well-established rule that suppression is required only when evidence is obtained in violation of a constitutional right or in violation of a statute providing suppression as a remedy,”

State v. Terrance J. O’Neill, 2003 WI App 73
For O’Neill: Roger D. Sturdevant, SPD, Monroe

Issue: Whether a judge’s persistent and partisan efforts to require litigation on a recurrent issue on which the court of appeals had already reversed him, in an unpublished case in which the judge actively appeared as a party on the appeal, establishes disqualifying bias.

Holding: Bias not established: The judge intends to require litigation on the disputed issue in every case,

State ex rel. William E. Marberry v. Macht, 2003 WI 79, reversing 2002 WI App 133, 254 Wis. 2d 690, 648 N.W.2d 522
For Marberry: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶23. The extraordinary relief provided by the writ of habeas corpus is available only in limited circumstances and is subject to three prerequisites. Haas ,

Clyde Piggie v. Cotton, 344 F.3d 674 (7th Cir. 2003)

Issue/Holding: Requirement of certificate of appealability doesn’t apply to habeas challenge to state disciplinary proceeding, citing Walker v. O’Brien, 216 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 2002).

Rule reaffirmed: Edward D. Anderson v. Benik, No. 05-2323, 12/20/06 But for another circuit’s rejection of this approach, creating a potentially cert-worthy split,

Terrance Bernard Davis v. Borgen, 349 F.3d 1027 ( 7th Cir. 03-2354, 11/20/03)

Issue/Holding: A certificate of appealability of dismissal of a habeas petition filed four years after the deadline is vacated:

To recap the statutory requirements: (1) A certificate of appealability may be issued only if the prisoner has at least one substantial constitutional question for appeal.

State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶16. Jipson’s answers, while incriminating, have no bearing on the focus here. That is, the answers do not establish Jipson knew the State had to prove the purpose of the sexual contact was an element of the crime. The critical inquiry is whether Jipson otherwise knew at the time of entering his plea all of the essential elements of the offense so that it can be said he knowingly pled guilty to the crime.

State v. John A. Jipson, 2003 WI App 222
For Jipson: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶7. When challenging a guilty or no contest plea, the defendant has the initial burden to produce a prima facie case comprised of the following two parts. First, the defendant must show the trial court accepted the defendant’s guilty plea without conforming to Wis. Stat. § 971.08 or other mandatory procedures.

State v. Kevin Harris, 2004 WI 64, affirming as modified 2003 WI App 144, 266 Wis. 2d 200, 667 N.W.2d 813
For Harris: Steven A. Koch

Issue/Holding:

¶16 Therefore, the court of appeals in the instant case misstated the law when it held that “the State violates the Constitution if it withholds the type of information that could form the basis for further investigation by the defense[,]”

Evans v. Luebke, 2003 WI App 207, PFR filed 10/23/03

Issue/Holding: Contempt is an inherent judicial power, but is legislatively regulated, such that its exercise outside the statutory scheme is proscribed. ¶17. The required statutory procedure is determined by whether the contempt is remedial or punitive. The latter punishes past conduct for the purpose of upholding authority of the court, § 785.01(2) it may be brought only by a prosecutor (DA,