On Point

State v. Timothy M. Ziebart, 2003 WI App 258
For Ziebart: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding:

¶26. Where the trial court incorrectly instructs the jury, this court must set aside the verdict unless that error was harmless; that is to say, unless there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction. State v. Neumann, 179 Wis. 2d 687, 703, 508 N.W.2d 54 (Ct.

State v. Rodney K. Stenseth, 2003 WI App 198, PFR filed 9/2/03
For Stenseth: Robert A. Ferg

Issue: Whether violation of the defendant’s right to be present at resentencing (occasioned by the original sentence exceeding the maximum allowable period of confinement) is subject to harmless error analysis.

Holding:

¶16. Wisconsin Stat. § 971.04(1)(g) provides that a defendant shall be present “[a]t the pronouncement of judgment and the imposition of sentence.”

State v. Joshua L. Howland, 2003 WI App 104
For Howland: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶32. We must also note that the inappropriate nature of the contact between the district attorney’s office and the Division of Community Corrections borders on ex parte communications. Our supreme court has acknowledged the importance of the PSI to the sentencing process. State v.

State v. Randy D. Stafford, 2003 WI App 138
For Stafford: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: A mental health professional whose assessment of the sexual assault defendant was incorporated into the presentence report and cited at length by the sentencing judge and who had, unbeknownst to the defense, treated the victim for the six months prior to the assessment, had a conflict of interest that amounted to a new factor requiring resentencing.

Fond du Lac County v. Elizabeth M.P., 2003 WI App 232
For Elizabeth M.P.: Thomas K. Voss

Issue: Whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to transfer Elizabeth, who was on outpatient status under ch. 51, to inpatient status given that judicial review of the county’s transfer decision wasn’t held within 10 days, contrary to § 51.35(1)(e)3.

Holding:

¶28. Wisconsin Stat.

Walworth County v. Therese B., 2003 WI App 223

Issue/Holding: Procedural due process in guardianship and protective placement proceedings is governed by the analysis used in mental commitments, W.J.C. v. Vilas County, 124 Wis. 2d 238, 240, 369 N.W.2d 162 (Ct. App. 1985), which in turn adopts Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976):

¶11 … The Mathews test “involves balancing three factors: 1) The private interest affected by the official action,

State v. Randy D. Stafford, 2003 WI App 138
For Stafford: Robert G. LeBell

Issue/Holding: A mental health professional whose assessment of the sexual assault defendant was incorporated into the presentence report and cited at length by the sentencing judge and who had, unbeknownst to the defense, treated the victim for the six months prior to the assessment, had a conflict of interest that amounted to a new factor requiring resentencing.

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:

¶21. Further, Ramuta’s obesity-related health problems and his resulting shorter-than-normal life expectancy are also not new factors. See Michels, 150 Wis. 2d at 99-100, 441 N.W.2d at 280-281 (defendant’s health and its post-sentence worsening not new factors).

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: Subsequent sentences on charges pending at the time of this sentencing didn’t amount to a new factor, State v. Norton, 2001 WI App 245, distinguished:

¶20.

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 resentencing is required on all remaining,