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
Appellate Procedure – Harmless Error – Jury Selection – Disqualified (Non-English Speaking) Juror
State v. Michael W. Carlson, 2001 WI App 296 For Carlson: Steven L. Miller Issue/Holding: Erroneous impaneling of a juror who, because he could not understand English, should not have been seated, wasn’t harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶46. The harmless error rule adopted last term by this court in State v. Harvey, 2002 WI […]
Mental health Commitment – Final Hearing Deadline
County of Milwaukee v. Edward S., 2001 WI App 169, PFR filed For Edward S.: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the 14-day deadline set by § 51.20(7)(c) for final hearing is extendible when delay is caused by the respondent’s own action. Holding: The otherwise mandatory deadline for final commitment hearing is waivable when the […]
NGI: Sufficiency of Evidence, Denial of Petition for Conditional Release
State v. Thomas Wenk, 2001 WI App 268, PFR filed 10/31/01 For Wenk: Michael K. Gould, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether trial court denial of a petition for conditional release from an NGI commitment was an erroneous exercise of discretion. Holding: Although the state expressed doubt that it had met its burden of proof, the trial […]
SVP Commitments: Automatic Initial Confinement — Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection
State v. Isaac H. Williams, State v. Willie Hogan, 2001 WI App 263, PFR filed 11/23/01 For Williams: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate For Hogan: Donald T. Lang, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue1: Whether the § 980.08(1) requirement that the SVP wait 18 months after initial commitment before petitioning for supervised release violates substantive due process. Holding: […]
SVP Commitments: Conditions of Confinement: WRC Policy Prohibiting Former Employees From Visiting Institution
Reuben Adams v. Macht, 2001 WI App 10, 241 Wis. 2d 28, 623 N.W.2d 215 Issue: Whether the Wisconsin Resource Center policy prohibiting former employees from visiting the institution is enforceable against a patient seeking visits from a former employee who is also the mother of his child. Holding: The policy is reasonable and based […]
SVP: Counsel — Waiver Standards
State v. Dennis R. Thiel (III), 2001 WI App 32, 241 Wis. 2d 465, 626 N.W.2d 26 For Thiel: John D. Lubarsky, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the standard for waiver of right to counsel in a criminal proceeding applies to Ch. 980. Holding: “… (B)ecause WIS. STAT. § 980.09(2) guarantees the right to counsel […]
Sentence Modification — New Factor — Post-Sentencing Revocation — Linkage to Intended Drug Treatment
State v. Steve Norton, 2001 WI App 245 For Norton: Peter M. Koneazny, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate Issue: Whether an unanticipated, post-sentencing revocation amounted to a new factor justifying modification of sentence. Holding: ¶10. Although we agree with the State that, in general, revocation of probation in another case does not ordinarily present a new factor, the […]
Sentence Modification — New Factor — Lesser Culpability — Not “Unknowingly Overlooked”
State v. Andre D. Crockett, 2001 WI App 235, PFR filed For Crockett: David D. Cook Issue:Whether facts suggesting that the defendant might have been less culpable than his codefendants amounted to a new factor justifying modification of sentence. Holding: A new factor may be relate to facts “unknowingly overlooked” at sentencing; here, although the asserted new […]
Sentence Modification — New Factor — Escalona-Naranjo Bar to Raising
State v. John Casteel, 2001 WI App 188, PFR filed Issue: Whether Casteel’s failure to argue in a prior new-factor based attempt to modify sentence bars him from now arguing that the special action release program, § 304.02 — a statute extant at the time of the prior motion to modify — is a new factor. Holding: ¶17. We […]
Sentence Modification — New Factor: Transfer to out-of-state Prison
State v. Anthony A. Parker, 2001 WI App 111 Issue: Whether transfer to an out-of-state prison was a new factor supporting sentence modification. Holding: ¶11. Parker contends that his transfer out of state is a new factor that frustrates the purpose of his sentence because his placement no longer coincides with the judgment of conviction confining […]
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.