On Point

State v. Rodosvaldo C. Pozo, 2002 WI App 279, 258 Wis. 2d 796, 654 N.W.2d 12

Issue/Holding:

¶8. Writ of habeas corpus is an equitable remedy that protects a person’s right to personal liberty by freeing him or her from illegal confinement. State ex rel. Dowe v. Waukesha County Circuit Court, 184 Wis. 2d 724, 728-29, 516 N.W.2d 714, 715-16 (1994). It arises in common law and is guaranteed by the state2 and federal3 constitutions,

State ex rel. Gerard Noel Haas v. McReynolds, 2002 WI 43, affirming unpublished court of appeals decision
For Haas: Robert G. Bernhoft

Issue/Holding: By voluntarily dismissing an appeal from denial of a first habeas petition, Haas was estopped from filing a second habeas petition in the court of appeals raising the same issue contained in the first petition. (That is, because Haas had an alternate, adequate remedy to challenging denial of the first petition —

State ex rel Edwin C. West v. Bartow, 2002 WI App 42
For West: Leonard D. Kachinsky

Issue: Whether the court had discretion to order change of venue from Winnebago (county of current SVP confinement) to Milwaukee (county of commitment), on habeas challenge to the commitment.

Holding: Venue was proper in Winnebago under § 801.50(4)(b) (where petitioner is being restrained); the trial court’s transfer mistakenly relied on § 801.50(4)(a) (where petitioner was convicted or sentence,

Darrell D. Cage v. McCaughtry, 305 F.3d 625 (7th Cir. 2002) 
For Cage: Calvin R. Malone

Issue/Holding: “When we make a mistake and issue a certificate of appealability that specifies an improper ground, counsel for both sides, rather than indulging a fiction of judicial infallibility, should inform us before briefing begins and ask us to amend the certificate, which is within our power because even an ‘unfounded’

Bernard L. Beyer v. Litscher, 306 F.3d 504 (7th Cir. 2002)

Issue/Holding: Certificate of Appealability required by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(3) must specifically identify a substantial constitutional issue. Declaration of purely statutory issue isn’t enough, and it is incumbent on counsel to bring this defect to the appellate court’s attention. Nonetheless, this appellant is allowed to proceed, though future litigants are cautioned: “Future petitioners and their lawyers should undertake to show that a substantial constitutional issue exists,

State v. Luther Williams, III, 2002 WI 58, on certification
For Williams: Martha K. Askins, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding: The evidence was sufficient to establish the intent element, and therefore to support conviction, for contributing to delinquency of a minor, §  948.40(1): “The jury reasonably could infer from the evidence that Williams was aware that his participation in illegal gambling with James D.

State v. Jacob E. Herman, 2002 WI App 28, PFR filed 1/16/02
For Herman: Jack E. Schairer, Jefren E. Olsen, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶1        Jacob Herman appeals from the sentencing portion of a judgment convicting him of possession of THC contrary to WIS. STAT. § 961.41(3g)(e).  The circuit court suspended Herman’s operating privilege for six months after concluding that it had no discretion to impose less than the minimum suspension mandated by WIS.

State v. Anthony J. Leitner, 2001 WI App 172, affirmed on other grounds, 2002 WI 77
For Leitner: Jim Scott

Issue: Whether the trial court properly denied a presentence motion to withdraw guilty plea.

Holding:

¶27. When a defendant shows a fair and just reason, the trial court should permit the plea withdrawal unless there is substantial prejudice to the prosecution.

State v. Corey J. Hampton, 2002 WI App 293, affirmed, 2004 WI 107
For Hampton: Melinda A. Swartz, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding: The pleading requirements for a hearing imposed by State v. Bentley, 201 Wis. 2d 303, 548 N.W.2d 50 (1996) aren’t applicable to a motion for plea-withdrawal based on defective colloquy:

¶20. Hampton responds that Bentley does not apply because the defendant in Bentley sought plea withdrawal based on ineffective assistance of counsel and,

State v. David C. Polashek, 2002 WI 74, affirming in part and reversing in part, 2001 WI App 130
For Polashek: Nila J. Robinson

Issue: Whether the element of “disclosure” in § 48.981(7) requires that the recipient not previously have been aware of the confidential information.

Holding: Given the plain meaning of “disclosure,” as defined by various dictionaries, as well as construciton of the term under the Federal Privacy Act:

¶23.