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
Double Jeopardy – Remedy: Multiplicity
State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, reversed on other grounds, 2003 WI 89 For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: Remedy for a multiplicity violation is left to trial court, applying test in State v. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, ¶57, 249 Wis. 2d 553, 638 N.W.2d 564.
Double Jeopardy – Remedy: Multiplicity
State v. Robert S. Robinson, 2002 WI 9, on certification For Robertson: Leonard D. Kachinsky Issue/Holding: ¶2. The question of law raised on appeal is what is the appropriate remedy when an accused is convicted on the basis of a negotiated plea agreement and the counts later are determined to be multiplicitous, violating the accused’s state […]
Enhancer — § 973.01(2)(c), Bifurcated Sentence — Application to Extended Supervision — Remedy
State v. Joseph F. Volk, 2002 WI App 274 For Volk: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison App Issue: Whether the extended supervision portion of truth-in-sentencing, § 973.01, supports repeater enhancement, § 939.62(1)(b). Holding: Because specifies that “confinement” may be enhanced, applying the principle that specification works an exclusion of non-enumerated items, the extended supervision portion of a sentence is […]
Double Jeopardy – Sentence: Defendant’s Fraud — No Expectation of Finality
State v. Ary L. Jones, 2002 WI App 208 For Jones: Arthur B. Nathan Issue/Holding: ¶14. The rule we adopt in Wisconsin, therefore, is that when a defendant makes a fraudulent representation to the sentencing court and the court accepts and relies upon that representation in determining the length of the sentence, the defendant has no […]
Double Jeopardy – Successive Prosecutions: “Statutory Double Jeopardy,” § 939.71 – Conviction of Lesser Offense as Bar to Homicide Prosecution following Victim’s Subsequent Death
State v. Trevor McKee, 2002 WI App 148, PFR filed 6/28/02 For McKee: Kenneth P. Casey, SPD, Jefferson Trial Issue/Holding: “(T)he prohibition against double jeopardy does not bar a prosecution for murder when the victim of an ‘assault and battery’ dies after a defendant has been convicted of the lesser offense. Diaz v. United States, 223 U.S. 442 […]
Due Process – Exculpatory Evidence — Lenient Treatment of Prosecution Witness
State v. Dale H. Chu, 2002 WI App 98, PFR filed 4/23/02 For Chu: Andrew Shaw Issue: Whether defendant was denied his right to exculpatory evidence when the state failed to disclose that a prosecution witness had received favorable treatment in another case. Holding: ¶37. As the State notes, prosecutions that end in dismissal and ordinance violations […]
Enhancer – § 939.62(2m)(d), Persistent Offender — Comparable Crime, Foreign Conviction – Determination
State v. Leonard T. Collins, 2002 WI App 177 For Collins: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶2. We agree with Collins that Wis. Stat. § 939.62(2m)(d) requires circuit courts to determine independently whether an out-of-state crime is comparable to a Wisconsin “serious felony,” even if the defendant admits that he or she is a persistent repeater. However, […]
Enhancers — § 939.62(2m), Persistent Offender — Comparable Crime, Foreign Conviction
State v. Charles J. Burroughs, 2002 WI App 18 For Burroughs: William F. Mross Issue/Holding: Burroughs’ prior conviction in Alabama for assault with intent to murder is sufficiently comparable to attempted first degree intentional homicide so as to support exposure to persistent offender sentencing, § 939.62(2m)(c). ¶¶23-27.
Due Process – Notice of Charge – Vague Charging Period
State v. James D. Miller, 2002 WI App 197, PFR filed 8/2/02 For Miller: Matthew H. Huppertz, Craig Kuhary, Daniel P. Fay Issue/Holding: The charging period of March 1, 1989, to March 31, 1993, was not too expansive to provide opportunity to prepare a defense, largely because of the victim’s youthfulness and vulnerable relationship (patient-therapist) to defendant, ¶31; […]
Equal Protection – Differential, County-Based Sentencing Guidelines
State v. Roland Smart, 2002 WI App 240, PFR filed 9/24/02 For Smart: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether sentencing-guideline disparity for driving while intoxicated under guidelines adopted by local counties pursuant to § 346.65(2m) violates equal protection or due process. Holding: Sentencing guideline disparities need be supported only by rational basis for equal protection purposes, as […]
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.