On Point

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.

State v. Glover B. Jones, 2002 WI App 196, PFR filed 8/22/02
For Jones: Mark D. Richards

Issue/Holding: The drug tax stamp law, §§ 139.87-139.96,  amended to address State v. Hall, 207 Wis. 2d 54, 557 N.W.2d 778 (1997), doesn’t violate the privilege against compelled self-incrimination, ¶33-36.

State ex rel. Bradley Jones v. Smith, 2002 WI App 90, PFR filed 4/19/02

Issue: Whether a prisoner is entitled to discharge of sentence if transported through another state without use of the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, § 976.03.

Holding: 

¶5                        According to Jones and Morey, the government is required to use the extradition process whenever and wherever prisoners are transported through noncontracting states on their way to incarceration in a contracting state. 

State v. Jimmie Davison, 2002 WI App 109, overruled on other grounds, 2003 WI 89, ¶111
For Davison: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue/Holding: A guilty plea doesn’t waive a facially valid multiplicity claim. ¶13.