On Point

State v. James H. Oswald, 2000 WI App 3, 232 Wis.2d 103, 606 N.W.2d 238
For Oswald: James L. Fullin, Jr., SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether a statement made while hospitalized should have been suppressed, as the product of a lengthy detention for the purpose of interrogation.

Holding:

¶46         When a confession is the product of “unreasonable police detention for purposes of interrogation,” it must be suppressed whether voluntary or not. 

State v. George W. Hindsley, 2000 WI App 130, 237 Wis. 2d 358, 614 N.W.2d 48
For Hindsley: James B. Connell

Issue: Whether a statement is involuntary, even in the absence of police coercion, simply because the Miranda warnings aren’t effectively communicated.

Holding: A suspect’s deafness doesn’t alter the test for voluntariness, “which was and remains focused on police coercion, and considers a person’s language and culture only insofar as they bear on whether coercion by more subtle means,

Mogged v. Mogged, 2000 WI App 39, 233 Wis. 2d 90, 607 N.W.2d 662

Issue/Holding: Brief adopting “vituperative tone” and making misleading, unsupported arguments violates Rules of Professional Conduct and is stricken. ¶¶21-24. (Note that the court cites 7th Circuit caselaw, ¶22, suggesting that decisions from that body are very pertinent.)

Appellate briefs containing personal attacks sufficiently inflammatory subject the author to the range of sanctions avaialble under the code of professional responsibility,

Juneau County DHS v. James B., 2000 WI App 86, 234 Wis. 2d 406, 610 N.W.2d 144
For Appellant: James L. Boardman; Chris R. Velnetske

Issue: Whether the court of appeals acquires jurisdiction over a CHIPS appeal commenced by notice of appeal without prior notice of intent to pursue relief.

Holding: ¶4:

In CHIPS cases, appeals are commenced by first filing of a notice of intent to pursue postconviction relief,

State v. Romero D. Wilson, 2000 WI App 114, 235 Wis.2d 177, 612 N.W.2d 368
For Wilson: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether an order dismissing a complaint, on refusal to bind over at preliminary hearing, is final and therefore appealable by the state.
Holding: An order dismissing a complaint is a final order, appealable by the state as of right (reaffirming State v.

State v. William F. Williams, 2000 WI App 123, 237 Wis.2d 591, 614 N.W.2d 11
For Williams: Steven P. Weiss, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court erroneously refused to accept an “Alford” plea under its express policy of never accepting one.

Holding:

¶8  Even if we were to determine that the trial court erred in rejecting the tendered Alford plea, the error would not justify setting aside the results of Williams’s jury trial.

State v. Warrick D. Floyd, 2000 WI 14, 232 Wis. 2d 767, 606 N.W.2d 155, on certification
For Floyd: David D. Leeper

Issue: Whether a defendant is entitled to sentence credit under Wis. Stat. § 973.155(1) for time spent in custody on a charge that is dismissed and read-in at sentencing.

Holding: Pre-trial confinement on a charge dismissed and read in at sentencing is related to the sentenced offense and therefore qualifies for credit:

¶31  In limiting the statute’s scope,

State ex rel. Larry E. Olson v. Litscher, 2000 WI App 61, 233 Wis. 2d 685, 608 N.W.2d 425

For Olson: Dennis Egre, SPD, Kenosha

Issue: Whether this case is moot, where the challenge is to the authorities’ failure to parole a prisoner at his mandatory release date, but he was released during the pendency of the case.

Holding: Although Olson’s release rendered the case moot,

State v. Bernard G. Fearing, 2000 WI App 229, 239 Wis.2d 105, 619 N.W.2d 115
For Fearing: Patrick J. Stangl

Issue: Whether a defendant must first raise a challenge to a condition of probation in a trial-level postconviction motion before seeking relief in the appellate court.

Holding: Even if the rule that review of a sentence requires a trial-level motion applies to review of a condition of probation,

State v. Joseph Scaccio III, 2000 WI App 265, 240 Wis.2d 95
For Scaccio: Jim D. Scott

Issue: Whether Scaccio’s motion to modify a sentencing imposed after revocation was untimely because he failed to appeal the original judgment of conviction.

Holding/Analysis: The principle is readily stated — you can take a direct appeal of a sentence imposed after revocation — but a certain amount of elaboration is unfortunately required.