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
Sentencing – Review – Factors — Use of Pretrial Psychiatric Evaluation
State v. Joshua Slagoski, 2001 WI App 112, PFR filed 4/27/01 For Slagoski: Christopher William Rose Issue1: Whether the results of a competency examination, which suggested that defendant presented a homicide-suicide risk, amounted to materially inaccurate information used at sentencing. Holding: ¶9 We conclude that it is entirely reasonable that a mental competency examination designed to address […]
Sentencing – Review – Factors — Defense Right to Present — Limited by Relevancy
State v. Shomari L. Robinson, 2001 WI App 127, 629 N.W.2d 810, PFR filed 5/7/01 Robinson: Joseph L. Sommers Issue: Whether the trial court impermissibly limited the defense presentation at sentencing. Holding: ¶19 What remains is for us to consider whether the trial court erroneously exercised its discretion by prohibiting Robinson from presenting his “car evidence” at […]
Sentencing – Review — Sentence Exceeding Statutory Maximum — Consecutive Terms of Probation — Remedy
State v. Glenn F. Schwebke, 2001 WI App 99, 242 Wis. 2d 585, 627 N.W.2d 213, affirmed on other grds., 2002 WI 55 For Schwebke: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School Issue/Holding: The remedy for this sentence which exceeded the permissible maximum — multiple counts of probation running consecutive to one another, ¶¶25-30 — is to commute […]
SVP – Postdisposition: Supervised Release – Reconsideration – Newly Discovered Evidence – Assessment of Pre-Existing Information
State v. Daniel Williams, 2001 WI App 155 For Williams: Adrienne M. Moore, SPD, Racine Trial Issue: Whether the grant of a petition for supervised release (§ 980.08) can be vacated on the basis of a periodic re-examination report (§ 980.07) which is a mere assessment of the same information utilized during the supervised release […]
SVP – Trial: Witnesses – Expert – Qualifications
State v. Larry J. Sprosty, 2001 WI App 231, PFR filed For Sprosty: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue: Whether the trial court erred in refusing to qualify a social worker as an expert in this Ch. 980 supervised release proceeding. Holding: Because the witness had “expertise with respect to treating sex offenders … […]
Bail: Forfeiture – Discretion
Barbara Melone v. State, 2001 WI App 13, 240 Wis. 2d 451, 623 N.W.2d 179For Melone: Theodore B. Kmiec III Issue: Whether the trial court properly exercised discretion in declining to set aside an order forfeiting bail, where the court indicated that it “always refuses to return [forfeited] bail money no matter what the circumstance,” […]
Review – Conflict between oral pronouncement written judgment
State v. Gabriel L. Ortiz, 2001 WI App 215 For Ortiz: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: “(W)here there is conflict between a trial court’s oral pronouncement and a written judgment, the oral pronouncement controls.” ¶27, citing State v. Perry, 136 Wis. 2d 92, 114, 401 N.W.2d 748 (1987). This rule is applicable even though “the […]
SVP Commitments: Counsel – Effective Assistance, Appeal
State ex rel. Ruven Seibert v. Macht, 2001 WI 67, 244 Wis. 2d 378, 627 N.W.2d 881, reconsideration denied2002 WI 12, reversing unpublished court of appeals order For Seibert: Gregory P. Seibold; amicus brief: Howard B. Eisenberg, Dean, Marquette Law School Issue/Holding: ¶1. This case presents two issues. The first issue is whether an indigent […]
Counsel – Ineffective Assistance – Deficient Performance – Failure to Investigate, Information within Defendant’s Knowledge, but not Imparted to Counsel
State v. William Nielsen, 2001 WI App 192, PFR filed For Nielsen: Waring R. Fincke Issue/Holding: “This court will not find counsel deficient for failing to discover information that was available to the defendant but that defendant failed to share with counsel.” ¶24.
Right to Counsel – Inherent Judicial Authority to Appoint – Indigency Determination – Use of Federal Poverty Guidelines
State v. Jose Nieves-Gonzalez, 2001 WI App 90, 242 Wis. 2d 782, 625 N.W.2d 913 Issue: Whether the trial court incorrectly applied federal poverty guidelines in refusing to appoint counsel at county expense, after the defendant failed to qualify under public defender standards. Holding: Although federal poverty guidelines are not necessarily conclusive, they should be […]
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.