On Point

State v. Theodore Oswald, 2000 WI App. 2, 232 Wis.2d 62, 606 N.W.2d 207
For Oswald: Jerome F. Buting, Kathleen B. Stilling

Issue: Whether counsel was ineffective for rejecting an NGI defense, where two defense experts rejected the defense but after trial one acknowledged that he misunderstood the correct test and that his opinion was now different.

Holding: “Competent representation does not demand that counsel seek repetitive examinations of the defendant until an expert is found who will offer a supportive opinion.”

Vonaire T. Washington v. Smith, 219 F.3d 620 (7th Cir. 2000)
For Washington: Robert R. Henak

Issue/Holding: Trial consel’s performance was deficient in three respects:

• Last-minute issuance of subpoena for hard-to-find witness, on theory that trials are often adjourned at last minute anyway. (“(P)lacing witness convenience above the vital interests of his client does not make Mr. Engle’s decsion reasonable — or even really strategic.”)
• Failure to investigate potential defense witnesses.

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 judicial appointment of counsel in a CHIPS case necessarily terminates after disposition, or may be continued for appeal.

Holding: Judicial appointment of counsel in a CHIPS case doesn’t automatically terminate upon disposition, the circuit court retaining authority to continue the appointment for purposes of appeal.

State v. Samuel Terry, 2000 WI App 250, 239 Wis. 2d 519, 620 N.W.2d 217
For Terry: Richard D. Martin, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate

Issue/Holding:

¶1 … Terry argues that, under the doctrine of issue preclusion, the State was precluded from criminally prosecuting him for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver because the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), at his probation and parole revocation proceeding, determined that there was insufficient proof that Terry possessed cocaine,

State v. David J. Cleveland, 2000 WI App 142, 237 Wis. 2d 558, 614 N.W.2d 543
For Cleveland: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether multiple sexual assault counts arising during a single incident violated double jeopardy.

Holding: Though the offenses weren’t separated in time, each required separate volitional acts and were therefore significantly different in nature for double jeopardy purposes. ¶¶24-26.

State v. Gabriel Derango, 2000 WI 89, 236 Wis. 2d 721, 613 N.W.2d 833, affirming State v. DeRango 229 Wis. 2d 1, 599 N.W.2d 27
For Derango: Robert G. LeBell

Issue: Whether conviction for both attempted child sexual exploitation and child enticement as a result of a single act is multiplicitous.

Holding: The two offenses are elementally distinct and therefore aren’t the “same”

State v. Rovaugn Hill, 2000 WI App 259, 240 Wis.2d 1, 622 N.W.2d 34
For Hill: Gerald P. Boyle

Issue: Whether reprosecution should be barred on double jeopardy grounds, because prosecutorial overreaching had caused a mistrial.

Holding: “[D]ouble jeopardy bars a retrial when the defendant has successfully moved for a mistrial, if the prosecutor acted with intent to gain another chance to convict or to harass the defendant with multiple prosecutions.”

State v. Hayes Johnson, 2000 WI 12, 232 Wis. 2d 679, 605 N.W.2d 846, reversing State v. Johnson, 223 Wis. 2d 85, 588 N.W.2d 330
For Johnson: Russell D. Bohach

Issue1: Whether a presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness arises from an increase in the charge following grant of mistrial due to hung jury.

Holding: No presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness applies to an increase in charges following mistrial due to hung jury.

State v. Thomas W. Koeppen, 2000 WI App 121, 237 Wis.2d 418, 614 N.W.2d 530
For Koeppen: Richard L. Zaffiro

Issue: Whether the repeater-qualifying convictions were inadequately proved merely because they weren’t made part of the appellate record.

Holding: “Even if the trial court did not include these documents in the appellate record, the documents’ existence at the time of sentencing is not negated because,

State v. Guy R. Willett, 2000 WI App 212, 238 Wis.2d 621, 618 N.W.2d 881
For Willett: Susan E. Alesia, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the trial court had authority to change its sentences from concurrent to consecutive to a separately imposed sentence, four months later, after concluding that its sentencing was based on an erroneous understanding of the law.

Holding: Although the trial court clearly wanted its sentences to run consecutive to a separately imposed sentence,