On Point

State v. John W. Page, 2000 WI App 267, 240 Wis.2d 276, 622 N.W.2d 285
For Page: William E. Schmaal, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether possession of dangerous weapon enhancer, § 939.63, requires actual use or threat to use the weapon while committing the enhanced offense.

Holding:

Under the correct reading of [State v.] Peete [,185 Wis.

State v. David M. Hahn, 2000 WI 118, 238 Wis. 2d 889, 618 N.W.2d 528, clarified on reconsideration, 2001 WI 6, on certification
For Hahn: Steven G. Bauer

Issue: “(W)hether the U.S. Constitution requires that an offender be permitted during an enhanced sentence proceeding predicated on a prior conviction to challenge the prior conviction as unconstitutional because the conviction was allegedly based on a guilty plea that was not knowing,

State v. Todd E. Crider, 2000 WI App 84, 234 Wis. 2d 195, 610 N.W.2d 198
For Crider: Suzanne L. Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether jail time spent as a condition of probation qualifies as “actual confinement serving a criminal sentence,” so as to extend the § 939.62(2) 5-year period within which a prior conviction must fall to support a repeater enhancement.

Holding: Though time served as a condition of probation is generally not a “sentence,”

State v. Jeff S. Mohr, 2000 WI App 111, 235 Wis.2d 220, 613 N.W.2d 186
For Mohr: Eileen A. Hirsch, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the frisk of a passenger, some 25 minutes after a routine traffic stop, was supported by reasonable belief that the person was armed.

Holding: The frisk was unlawful; because it “occurred approximately twenty-five minutes after the initial traffic stop, the most natural conclusion is that the frisk was a general precautionary measure,

State v. Martin D. Triplett, 2005 WI App 255
For Triplett: Syovata Edari, SPD, Milwaukee Appellate / Milwaukee Trial

Issue/Holding:

¶11      Despite the fact-specific nature of our analysis, we glean from the case law several useful guiding principles. First, an officer should confine his or her search “strictly to what [is] minimally necessary” to learn whether an individual is armed. Id. at 30.

State v. James E. Cole, 2000 WI App 52, 233 Wis. 2d 577, 608 N.W.2d 432

Issue: Whether a sentence can be ordered to run “consecutive to revocation” when the defendant’s parole has not yet been revoked.

Holding: A court has authority, under Wis. Stat. § 973.15(2)(a), to make the current sentence consecutive to a revocation of parole, even though the revocation has not yet occurred.

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

Issue1: Whether seizing an object from the suspect’s pocket exceeded the permissible scope of a Terry frisk

Holding: Because the object’s size, shape and feel were consistent with a pocket knife; and the suspect lied to the officer about the nature of the object ,and was nervous and kept reaching for his pocket knife despite being told not to,

State v. David Carneal White, 2000 WI App 147, 237 Wis.2d 699, 615 N.W.2d 667
For White: Jeffrey A. Kingsley

Issue: Whether a court has authority to stay a sentence until the defendant is released or discharged from an otherwise unrelated Ch. 980 commitment.

Holding: The purposes of § 971.17 NGI and Ch. 980 SVP commitments being similar (¶¶8-9), the reasoning of State v.

State v. Antonion Blanco, Nora M. Al-Shammari, 2000 WI App 119, 237 Wis.2d 395, 614 N.W.2d 512
For Blanco: Michael P. Jakus

Issue: Whether an arrest warrant provided authority for the police to enter the residence of a third party and arrest the person named in the warrant.

Holding:

¶10 An arrest warrant authorizes the police to “enter the suspect’s residence to execute the warrant if there is reason to believe he will be found there;

State v. Rayshun D. Eason, 2000 WI App 73, 234 Wis. 2d 396, 610 N.W.2d 208, affirmed in pertinent part, but reversed on other grounds, 2001 WI 98, ¶¶21-26
For Eason (in SCt): Suzanne Hagopian, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether the no-knock warrant was supported by reasonable suspicion that announcing police presence would create danger.

Holding: The showing wasn’t sufficient to abrogate announcement: though the warrant noted the occupants’