On Point

State v. Ronald G. Sorenson, 2000 WI 43, 234 Wis. 2d 648, 611 N.W.2d 240, reversing unpublished decision of court of appeals

Issue: “(W)hether Wis. Stat. § 801.16(2), under which ‘papers that do not require a filing fee’ may be filed by facsimile transmission, permits indigent parties to file a notice of appeal by facsimile.”

Holding: ¶5:

We hold that a notice of appeal may be filed by facsimile transmission because a notice of appeal is not a paper that requires a filing fee to confer jurisdiction.

State v. Paul E. Magnuson, 2000 WI 19, 233 Wis. 2d 40, 606 N.W.2d 536, reversing unpublished decision
For Magnuson: Keith A. Findley, UW Law School

Issue: Whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit for time spent in home detention with electronic monitoring as a condition of bond.

Holding: Custody for sentence credit purposes is determined by whether the defendant’s status subjects him/her to an escape charge and,

State v. Dale H. Davidson, 2000 WI 91, 236 Wis. 2d 537, 613 N.W.2d 606, reversing State v. Davidson, 222 Wis. 2d 233, 589 N.W.2d 038
For Davidson: Jerome F. Buting & Pamela Moorshead

Issue: Whether objection to the prosecutor’s closing argument was waived by failing to move for mistrial.
Holding: Although Davidson objected to the closing argument, his failure to also move for mistrial waived the objection.

State v. David W. Oakley, 2000 WI 37, 234 Wis. 2d 528, 609 N.W.2d 786, reversing State v. Oakley, 226 Wis. 2d 437, 594 N.W.2d 827 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Oakley: Timothy T. Kay

Issue: “(W)hether a circuit court may require payment of an old, unpaid fine that was imposed in a prior sentence as a condition of probation for a new conviction when violation of the condition of probation exposes the defendant to incarceration in county jail for more than six months.”

State v. David S. Leighton, 2000 WI App 156, 237 Wis.2d 709, 616 N.W.2d 126
For Leighton: Daniel Snyder

Issue/Holding: In setting parole eligibility date trial court need not separately refer to primary factors used in imposing sentence. ¶¶52-53.

State v. William J. Church, 2000 WI 90, 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638, dismissing review as improvidently granted, thereby affirming State v. Church , 223 Wis. 2d 641, 589 N.W.2d 638 (Ct. App. 1998)
For Church: James L. Fullin, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the child enticement statute, § 948.07, supports multiple charges and punishments based on a single act.

State v. Jeffrey A. Warbelton, 2009 WI 6, affirming 2008 WI App 42
For Warbelton: Paul G. LaZotte, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶21      …. The legislature has the authority to designate a prior conviction as a penalty enhancer rather than an element of the offense. Almendarez-Torres, 523 U.S. at 246. Although the legislature is permitted to designate a prior conviction as a penalty enhancer,

State v. Jose C. McGill, 2000 WI 38, 234 Wis. 2d 560, 609 N.W.2d 795, affirming unpublished decision
For McGill: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the officer had reasonable suspicion to believe McGill armed and dangerous, and therefore to frisk him, following a routine traffic stop.

Holding: Judged by the requisite objective test, the frisk was justified, given that: the driver didn’t stop immediately;

State v. Lance R. Ward, 2000 WI 3, 231 Wis.2d 723, 604 N.W.2d 517, reversing State v. Ward, 222 Wis. 2d 311, 588 N.W.2d 645.For Ward: Daniel P. Dunn

Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule applies where the police relied on judge-made law that automatically countenanced all no-knock entries to search for drugs and that law was subsequently overturned.

Holding: Police action in good faith reliance on supreme court pronouncements insulate that conduct from the exclusionary rule.

State v. Lisa Orta and Ricardo Ruiz, 2000 WI 4, 231 Wis.2d 782, 604 N.W.2d 543, reversing unpublished decision
For Orta: Mark F. Nielsen, Schwartz, Tifte & Nielsen
For Ruiz: Michael P. Reisterer, Jr.
For amici (SPD & WACDL): Mary E. Waitrovich, SPD, Madison Appellate, & Howard B. Eisenberg

Issue: Whether the exclusionary rule applies where the police rely on judge-made law that automatically countenanced all no-knock entries to search for drugs and that law was subsequently overturned.