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
Modification — New Factor — Rehabilitation — Truth-in-Sentencing
State v. Dawn M. Champion, 2002 WI App 267, PFR filed 12/2/02 For Champion: Patricia L. Arreazola Issue: Whether the defendant’s early completion of all available rehabilitation programs is a new factor justifying reduction of the confinement portion of her sentence. Holding: ¶13. Our review of the legislative history of 1997 Wis. Act 283 demonstrates that the legislature […]
Sentence Modification — New Factor — Defendant’s “New-Found Realization” of Past Victimization
State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: Defendant’s new-found realization that his behavior was caused by childhood sexual exploitation isn’t a new factor justifying sentence reduction: “¶25 … Just as a new expert opinion based on previously known or knowable facts is nothing more than […]
Modification — New Factor: Reversal of Conviction in Another Case
State v. Kelley L. Hauk, 2002 WI App 226 For Hauk: David D. Cook Issue/Holding: Reversal of defendant’s conviction in another case is new factor (where remaining, valid sentence was concurrent to vacated sentence) upon which trial court may, but is not required, to reduce sentence.
Sentence Modification — Procedure — Notice to State
State v. Michael A. Grindemann, 2002 WI App 106, PFR filed 5/23/02 For Grindemann: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: The trial court erred in granting a motion to modify sentence without either seeking the state’s response or holding a hearing. Procedure on motion to modify sentence is similar to that for a post-conviction motion under § 974.06(3) — if the motion […]
Sentence Modification — Procedure — Timeliness
State v. Robert L. Noll, 2002 WI App 273 Issue: Whether a new-factor based motion to modify sentence may be rejected as untimely under § 973.19. Holding: The motion invoked the trial court’s inherent authority to modify, and therefore § 973.19 and its 90-day deadline was inapplicable. ¶5. The two procedures are distinct. Under § 973.19 a defendant […]
SVP Commitments: Conditions of Confinement: Blanket Policy of Restraint During Transport
Richard Thielman v. Leean, 2002 WI App 33 Companion case: Thielman v. Leean, 282 F.3d 478 (7th Cir. 2002)For Thielman: Mary Kennelly Issue/Holding: ¶1. The Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) appeals the circuit court’s order enjoining DHFS from transporting Richard Thielman and similarly committed ch. 980 patients to and from treatment facilities such as […]
SVP – Trial – Jury Instructions – Acts of Sexual Violence
State v. John Lee Laxton, 2002 WI 82, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision (Affirmed on other grounds, habeas review, John L. Laxton v. Bartow, 421 F.3d 565 (7th Cir 2005)) For Laxton: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court adequately instructed the jury on “acts of sexual violence.” Holding: ¶28. … […]
SVP – Trial – Jury Selection – Failure to Strike Juror – Reviewability
State v. Richard A. Brown (II), 2002 WI App 260, PFR filed 10/22/02 For Brown: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶16. Brown next argues that the trial court erred in failing to strike a prospective juror for cause and that he was prejudiced by being forced to use one of his peremptory strikes […]
SVP – Trial – Jury Selection – Number of Peremptory Challenges
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195 For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue: Whether a respondent is entitled to the number of peremptory challenges prescribed by § 972.03, because of the potential for life-long custody. Holding: Because an SVP respondent is entitled to periodic review, the analogy to a life sentence fails, and peremptory challenges are […]
SVP – Pretrial – Petition — Timeliness — Calculation of Release Date on Concurrent Sentences
State v. Thomas Treadway, 2002 WI App 195 For Treadway: Lynn E. Hackbarth Issue: Whether the state’s petition was timely, where the respondent had already completed his sentence on the qualifying conviction but was serving concurrent sentences with the controlling sentence a non-qualifying conviction. Holding: State v. Keith, 216 Wis. 2d 61, 573 N.W.2d 888 (Ct. […]
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.