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
Restitution – Special Damages – Time Spent by Victim’s Salaried Employee Investigating Offense
State v. William A. Rouse, 2002 WI App 107, PFR filed 5/8/02 For Rouse: Morris D. Berman Issue/Holding: Time spent by a bank’s salaried employees investigating the crime (forgery) is subject to restitution because, while the bank’s employees were investigating Rouse’s forgeries, they were prevented from doing other work for the bank, and thus the bank […]
Review — Resentencing — Correction of Unlawful Sentence — Double Jeopardy — Increase in Original Sentence
State v. Timothy J. Helm, 2002 WI App 154, PFR filed 6/11/02 Issue: Whether resentencing, to correct an illegal sentence, violated double jeopardy because it resulted in an increase in the original sentence. Holding: On sentence after revocation, the trial court reimposed probation on one of the counts; this was an unauthorized disposition which the trial court properly […]
Re-Sentencing — Multiple Counts, Challenge to One Count
State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02 For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶39 n. 1: Groth was sentenced on all three counts at the same hearing and, therefore, the court’s determination of his sentence on any of the counts may well have affected its determination […]
Sentencing Review — Waiver of Objection to Reliance on Information
State v. Jeffrey R. Groth, 2002 WI App 299, PFR filed 12/11/02 For Groth: Peter Koneazny, Randall E. Paulson, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue/Holding: Reviewing court may address merits of attack on sentence based on inaccurate information, notwithstanding absence of contemporaneous objection. ¶25. It is appropriate here for the court to overlook waiver, where the state concedes […]
Defense win – circuit court lost competency due to incorrect computation of time Limit for probable cause hearing
Dodge County v. Ryan E.M., 2002 WI App 71 For Ryan E.M.: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the 72-hour deadline, necessary for the court’s competency over the ch. 51 commitment proceeding, is measured from the subject’s time of detention. (“¶4. The issue in this case is whether the method of computing time set […]
Protective Services – Competence of Court following Untimely Probable Cause Hearing
Kindcare, Inc. v. Judith G., 2002 WI App 36 Issue/Holding: ¶3 The issue presented by this appeal is whether the circuit court loses competence to adjudicate a person’s need for protective placement if the probable-cause hearing is not held within seventy-two hours after the person was taken into custody, or whether, as the trial court […]
Protective Services – Personal Presence of Alleged Incompetent
Knight and Knight v. Milwaukee Co., 2002 WI App 194 Issue/Holding: A trial court lacks competency to enter orders with respect to an alleged incompetent, unless the g.a.l. certifies the specific reasons the person can’t attend, pursuant to § 880.08(1).
NGI — Revocation — Timeliness of Petition
State v. George Schertz, 2002 WI App 289 For Schertz: Barbara A. Cadwell Issue/Holding: The provision in § 971.17(3)(e) for hearing within 30 days a petition for revocation of NGI conditional release is directory, not mandatory. ¶¶7-14.
SVP Commitment: Claim/Issue Preclusion – Prior Dismissal of Petition at Trial for Insufficient Proof
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02 For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether a 980 petition was barred because a prior petition was dismissed at trial for insufficient proof, but the respondent was subsequently returned to prison on a parole revocation for a violation not involving an act […]
SVP: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Failure to Obtain Expert – Lack of Prejudice
State v. Kenneth Parrish, 2002 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/11/02 For Parrish: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: The trial court’s rejection of respondent’s post-commitment proffer of an expert, in support of a claim that trial counsel was ineffective for not securing an expert, is sustained, due in particular to the trial court’s […]
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.