On Point

State v. William L. Brockett, 2002 WI App 115, PFR filed 5/17/02
For Brockett: Hans P. Koesser
Issue/Hearing: The defendant’s right to personal presence at a postconviction evidentiary hearing hinges on the existence of substantial issues of fact in which the defendant participated. Here, there was a substantial dispute, but it related to a “side issue,” and the defendant therefore had no right to be present in person.

State v. Anthony J. Dentici, Jr., 2002 WI App 77, PFR filed 2/5/02
For Dentici: Joseph E. Redding

Issue/Holding:

¶1 … Dentici claims that he is entitled to twenty-five days’ credit pursuant to State v. Riske, 152 Wis. 2d 260, 448 N.W.2d 260 (Ct. App. 1989), because, after being sentenced to sixty days at the House of Correction as a condition of probation,

State v. William L. Brockett, 2002 WI App 115, PFR filed 5/17/02
For Brockett: Hans P. Koesser

Issue/Hearing: The trial court has inherent authority to vacate or modify an order (including, as in this instance, on state’s motion). ¶¶13-15.

State v. John D. Tiggs, Jr., 2002 WI App 181

Issue/Holding:

¶9. We agree with Tiggs that once he has changed his legal name, he has a positive right to be called by that name. But he may also, by conduct, forfeit that right. If he calls himself by some other name, he has announced to the world that he goes by that other name and others then have the right not only to call him by that other name,

State v. Jerry L. Parker,  2002 WI App 159, PFR filed 5/20/02
For Parker: William Christopher Rose

Issue: Whether the principle of State v. Perry, 136 Wis. 2d 92, 401 N.W.2d 748 (1987) (missing transcript that can’t be re-created requires new trial) applies to posttrial destruction of potentially exculpatory evidence (taped drug transaction) given to the defense before trial but never introduced into the record.

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 is obviously non-meritorious, the trial court should deny it outright;

State v. Jonathan J. English-Lancaster, 2002 WI App 74, PFR filed 3/22/02
For English-Lancaster: Steven D. Phillips, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether defendant waived an objection to the violation of an in limine order, by waiting until a recess to enter an objection.

Holding:

¶17. When the State violated the stipulation and the court’s order at trial, English- Lancaster did not immediately object. Instead,

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: A guilty plea doesn’t waive a facially valid multiplicity claim. ¶13.The supreme court subsequently stated: “Because Davison’s multiplicity objection fails on the merits, we need not and do not decide whether, by pleading guilty, he waived his right to raise this claim,”

State v. Paul Venema, 2002 WI App 202
For Venema: Randall R. Garczynski

Issue/Holding: Failure to object to portions of closing argument didn’t waive right to challenge them on appeal, where defendant obtained a “definitive pretrial ruling” which “served to preserve (his) position for appeal.” ¶25 n. 9.

State v. Edward W. Johnson, Jr., 2002 WI App 166
For Johnson: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Where restitution was for counseling expenses, Johnson failed to show good cause for discovery of her counseling records. ¶¶28-30.