On Point

State ex rel. Fuentes v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 225 Wis. 2d 446, 593 N.W.2d 48 (1999)
For Fuentes: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding:

¶6. The availability of habeas corpus relief arises out of the common law and is guaranteed by both the state2 and federal3 constitutions as well as by statute.4 Although a habeas corpus petition normally arises out of criminal proceedings, it is a separate civil action founded upon principles of equity.

State ex rel. Fuentes v. Wisconsin Court of Appeals, 225 Wis. 2d 446, 593 N.W.2d 48 (1999)
For Fuentes: Robert T. Ruth

Issue/Holding: Court of appeals’ “clerical error” (failure to mail appellate counsel a copy of its decision affirming conviction) which led to loss of deadline for filing petition for review in supreme court held remediable through writ of habeas corpus.

State ex rel. Michael J. Hager v. Marten, 226 Wis.2d 687, 594 N.W.2d 791 (1999), affirming unpublished decision
For Hager, Gerhardt F. Getzin, SPD, Wausau

Issue/Holding: “(A) question of statutory interpretation may be considered on a writ of habeas corpus only if noncompliance with the statute at issue resulted in the restraint of the petitioner’s liberty in violation of the constitution or the court’s jurisdiction,” ¶ 2.

State v. Mark Inglin, 224 Wis.2d 764, 592 N.W.2d 666 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Inglin: Stephen M. Glynn & Robert R. Henak

Holding: Inglin argues denial of right to offer an affirmative defense to § 948.31(1)(b), namely that his actions were necessary to prevent mental harm to the child. Although his argument “present[s] an intriguing due process theory based on the interplay of § 948.04(2), Stats., and 948.31(4)(a), Stats.

State v. Mark Inglin, 224 Wis.2d 764, 592 N.W.2d 666 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Inglin: Stephen M. Glynn & Robert R. Henak

Holding: § 948.31(1)(b) penalizes several different actus reus alternatives, including taking a child away, or withholding a child more than 12 hours beyond court approval. Inglin had his ex-wife’s consent to take their child on a camping trip to Colorado. He deceived her, though, and fled with the child to Canada.

State v. Dawn C. Moline, 229 Wis. 2d 38, 598 N.W.2d 929 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Moline: Patrick M. Donnelly, SPD, Madison Appellate

Issue: Whether prior conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia, § 961.573, qualifies the offender as a repeat drug offender,  § 961.48(3).

Holding:

By this decision, we hold that a prior conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia pursuant to § 961.573, STATS., qualifies as a prior offense under the repeat drug offender statute,

State v. Dennis J. Kivioja, 225 Wis.2d 271, 592 N.W.2d 220 (1999), on certification
For Kivioja: Mark G. Sukowaty.

Issue/Holding: Kivioja pleaded guilty after his codefendant, Stehle, implicated him in a string of burglaries. Following his own sentencing and prior to Kivioja’s, Stehle recanted and Kivioja moved to withdraw his pleas. The trial court denied the motion after a hearing; the court of appeals certified the appeal,

State v. Jonathan V. Manke, 230 Wis.2d 421, 602 N.W.2d 139 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Manke: Waring R. Fincke

Issue/Holding: After a plea-based sentence has been vacated, and re-sentencing ordered, the “fair and just reason” standard applies to a motion to withdraw the plea:

Before considering if Manke met his burden of proof, our initial determination must be which is the correct standard to apply when evaluating his plea withdrawal motion. 

State v. Steven M. Shimek, 230 Wis.2d 730, 601 N.W.2d 865 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Shimek: Keith A. Findley.

Issue: Whether perceived bias on part of PSI author supports pre-sentence withdrawal of guilty plea.

Holding: Trial court’s denial of motion, along with disregarding recommendation of that PSI and allowing defense to prepare alternative PSI, was proper exercise of discretion:

The purpose of permitting plea withdrawals before sentencing under this liberal standard is to facilitate the efficient administration of justice by reducing the number of appeals contesting the knowing and voluntariness of a plea;

State v. Jonathan L. Franklin, 228 Wis.2d 408, 596 N.W.2d 855 (Ct. App. 1999)
For Franklin: Archie E. Simonson.

Holding: Franklin’s effort to withdraw his guilty plea, based on a claim that his attorney failed to investigate an alibi, is rebuffed. His attorney testified at a plea-withdrawal hearing that Franklin had already admitted that the alibi was false, and that the attorney had told Franklin he was ethically barred from presenting witnesses he knew were lying.