On Point

State v. Deryl B. Beyer, 2001 WI App 167, PFR filed
For Beyer: Jack E. Schairer, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue1: Whether the trial court lost competence because the 72-hour time limit for a probable cause hearing, imposed by § 980.04(2), had passed.

Holding: Although the statutory time limit uses the term “shall,” it is directory rather than mandatory. “¶11. Under Wis. Stat. § 980.02(2), the State has only one ninety-day window of opportunity to petition for commitment.

State v. Aaron K. Gibbs, 2001 WI App 83, 242 Wis. 2d 640, 625 N.W.2d 666
For Gibbs: Donna L. Hintze, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a delinquency adjudication under former Wis. Stat. Ch. 48 (1993-94) supports a Ch. 980 petition.

Holding:

¶7 The question is whether in 1997 the circuit court had the authority under the 1997-98 version of WIS.

State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether the trial court improperly assigned the burden of persuasion to the inmate at the § 980.09(2)(a) probable cause hearing.

Holding: The burden of persuasion is assigned to neither party at a § 908.09(2)(a) hearing, the purpose of which is simply to conduct a paper review to determine whether a full evidentiary hearing is necessary.

State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether the patient was entitled to a full evidentiary hearing on release following the reexamination probable cause “paper review.”

Holding:

¶26 A full evidentiary hearing was unwarranted. The only evidence before the trial court indicated that the grounds for Thayer’s original WIS.

State v. Glenn Allen Thayer, 2001 WI App 51, 241 Wis. 2d 417, 626 N.W.2d 811
For Thayer: Jane K. Smith

Issue: Whether the lateness of counsel’s appointment, six days before the paper review probable cause hearing, violated due process.

Holding: Construing Thayer’s argument to raise a contention that due to lateness of the appointment, counsel “had insufficient time to prepare for the probable cause hearing,”

State v. Ronald Ransdell, 2001 WI App 202, PFR filed 8/27/01
For Ransdell: Ellen Henak, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue: Whether the automatic initial commitment to institutional care provision, § 980.06, on its face violates substantive due process.

Holding: A person challenging the constitutionality of a statute must show its infirmity beyond reasonable doubt; a statute restricting liberty implicates a “strict-scrutiny” test. ¶5. Applying this test, § 980.06 does not violate due process: requiring that a commitment subject first undergo evaluation and treatment in an institutional setting before a decision is made as to supervised release is a reasonable legislative policy determination;

State v. Garren G. Gribble, 2001 WI App 227, PFR filed
For Gribble: Charles B. Vetzner, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the sentencing court punished the defendant for going to trial and by stressing the perceived falsity of the theory of defense.

Holding:

¶66. We do not agree with Gribble’s claim that the trial court was punishing him for “defense counsel’s lawful efforts to support the defendant’s claim of innocence.”

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 a defendant’s ability to understand the proceedings and assist counsel may also address issues of future dangerousness.

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.  As the trial court correctly noted,

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 the excess portion to the total allowable term of probation.